2023-403-Minutes for Meeting November 29,2023 Recorded 12/27/2023v1ES
0
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon
(541) 388-6570
Recorded in Deschutes County
Steve Dennison, County Clerk
Commissioners' Journal
CJ2023-403
12/27/2023 10:32:56 AM
FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY
BOCC MEETING MINUTES
9:00 AM
WEDNESDAY November 29, 2023
Barnes Sawyer Rooms
Live Streamed Video
Present were Commissioners Tony DeBone, Patti Adair and Phil Chang. Also present were
County Administrator Nick Lelack; Assistant Legal Counsel Kim Riley; and BOCC Executive Assistant
Brenda Fritsvold.
This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County
Meeting Portal webpage www.deschutes.org/meetings.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: None
CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of the Consent Agenda.
1. Approval of Document No. 2023-1023 granting five permanent easements to the
Oregon Department of Transportation over portions of County -owned property,
and approval of Document No. 2023-1024 Terms of State's Offer
2. Approval of County Administrator signature of revised County Finance Policy No.
F-15, Payments to Suppliers
3. Approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2023-928, a Notice of Intent to
Award a contract for the Smith Rock Way Bridge #15452 Replacement Project
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 1 OF 12
4. Approval of Document No. 2023-1011, an amendment to the interlocal
agreement with the Department of Education for Juvenile Crime Prevention funds
5. Consideration of Board Signature on a letter appointing Travis Krieck as the Black
Butte Ranch Rural Fire Protection District representative to the Deschutes County
Ambulance Service Area Committee
6. Approval of minutes of the BOCC October 25 and 30 and November 8 and 13,
2023 meetings
At the request of the Board, the minutes of the November 1, 2023 meeting were
pulled from the consent agenda for further review.
ADAIR: Move approval of the Consent Agenda as amended to remove
approval of the minutes of the November 1, 2023 BOCC meeting
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
ACTION ITEMS:
7. Public hearing and consideration of Resolution No. 2023-062 adopting a
supplemental budget and reducing FY24 Beginning Working Capital and
appropriations
Dan Emerson, Budget & Financial Planning Manager, explained the changes
needed to adjust the FY 2023-24 beginning working capital amounts of various
funds to replace estimated ending fund balance amounts with actual amounts as
the latter have now been determined.
The public hearing was opened at 9:04 am. There being no one who wished to testify,
the public hearing was closed at 9:04 am.
CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2023-062 adopting a
supplemental budget and reducing FY24 Beginning Working
Capital and appropriations
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 2 OF 12
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board convened as the governing body of the Countywide Law Enforcement District.
8. Consideration of Resolution No. 2023-063 adopting a supplemental budget
which recognizes additional funds, reduces FY24 Beginning Working Capital,
and decreases appropriations within the Countywide Law Enforcement
District Fund
Budget & Financial Planning Manager Dan Emerson explained that because the
FY 2022-23 ending fund balance in the Countywide Law Enforcement District
Fund was less than estimated, this Fund's FY 2023-24 Beginning Working Capital
must be reduced by $1,061,116 and appropriations decreased by $915,178.
These adjustments reflect that an additional $145,938 in property tax revenue
was received above the anticipated amount.
Commissioner Chang noted the use of $2,302,82 in contingency funds for
expenditures and asked about the remaining contingency amount. Emerson said
the proposed adjustments will revise the contingency amount in this fund to
approximately $9 million.
ADAIR: Move approval of Resolution No. 2023-063 adopting a supplemental
Budget which recognizes additional funds, reduces FY24 Beginning
Working Capital, and decreases appropriations within the Countywide
Law Enforcement District Fund
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Chang advised that the matter of shoring up the contingency
amount in this fund be taken up during the next budget cycle.
The Board convened as the governing body of the Rural Law Enforcement District.
9. Consideration of Resolution No. 2023-064 adopting a supplemental budget
which recognizes additional funds, reduces FY24 Beginning Working Capital,
and decreases appropriations within the Rural Law Enforcement District
Fund
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 3 OF 12
Budget & Financial Planning Manager Dan Emerson explained that because the
FY 2022-23 ending fund balance in the Rural Law Enforcement District Fund was
less than estimated, this Fund's FY 2023-24 Beginning Working Capital must be
reduced by $1,122,821 and appropriations decreased by $1,043,223.
ADAIR: Move approval of Resolution No. 2023-064 adopting a supplemental
Budget which recognizes additional funds, reduces FY24 Beginning
Working Capital, and decreases appropriations within the Rural Law
Enforcement District Fund
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
The Board reconvened as the governing body of Deschutes County.
10. Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption application for Jackstraw
development at 310 & 350 SW Industrial Way
Cate Schneider, City of Bend Senior Management Analyst, summarized the
request for a Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) for the Jackstraw
project and explained how it meets the MUPTE program requirements.
Cassidy Bolger, Director of Development for the applicant Killian Pacific,
described the project and shared a 3D rendering of the planned development.
The expected completion date is the third quarter of 2025.
Commissioner DeBone noted that if this project is approved for a property tax
exemption, it would not result in any additional property tax revenues deferred
from any of the County's taxing districts.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Schneider said the TIF district was
established in 2020 for a duration of 30 years. Commissioner Chang appreciated
that the jackstraw project will conserve energy and support alternative
transportation options while adding housing units.
CHANG: Move approval of the application from Killian Pacific for a
Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption relating to property at
310 & 350 SW Industrial Way in Bend
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
BOCC MEETING NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 4 OF 12
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Commissioner Adair said facilitating a greater availability of in -home childcare
would improve the project.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2023-025 - Stevens Road Tract Plan
Amendment / Zone Change
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner, said if adopted, the ordinance would effectuate
a Comprehensive Plan designation change of property directly north of the Knott
Landfill from Rural Residential Exception Area to Bend Urban Growth Boundary,
and also change the zone of the property from Multiple Use Agricultural to
Urbanizable Area. These changes were requested by the City of Bend; the Board
approved first reading of the ordinance on November 8t"
ADAIR: Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2023-025 by
title only
CHANG Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair DeBone read the title of the ordinance into the record.
CHANG: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-025 amending Deschutes
County Code Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan,
to change the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation for certain
property From Rural Residential Exception Area to Bend Urban
Growth Boundary, and amending Deschutes County Code Title 18,
the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to change the Zone Designation
for certain property From Multiple Use Agricultural to Urbanizable
Area
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
12. Ordinance No. 2023-023 amending Deschutes County Code relating to the
composition of the Historic Landmarks Commission
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 5 OF 12
Tanya Saltzman, Senior Planner, explained that the proposed ordinance would
amend Chapter 28 of Title 2 of Deschutes County Code to remove language
requiring that the Deschutes County Pioneer Association be represented on the
County's Historic Landmarks Commission as the Pioneer Association is no longer
a standalone not -for -profit Oregon entity.
Noting that the Pioneer Association was absorbed into the Deschutes County
Historical Society, Commissioner Chang asked if the Historical Society has a
designated position on the Landmarks Commission. Saltzman said it does not,
although a member of the Historical Society may be appointed to the Landmarks
Commission.
County Administrator Nick Lelack said the Community Development Department
will schedule a joint meeting between the Board and the Historical Landmarks
Commission in early 2024.
ADAIR: Move approval of first and second reading by title only and
emergency adoption of Ordinance No. 2023-023, amending
Deschutes County Code Title 2, Chapter 28 to remove reference
to the Deschutes County Pioneer Association
CHANG: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
Chair DeBone read the title of the ordinance into the record two times.
13. Resolution No. 2023-066, adding a new position of Information Security
Manager to the IT Department and allocating funds to address immediate
cybersecurity needs
Tania Mahood, IT Director, presented a request to add 1.00 FTE to the IT
Department for an Information Security Manager position to address immediate
cybersecurity needs and enhance the security posture of the County.
Emphasizing that the County does not have any staff dedicated to this critical
work, Mahood said if approved, the projected hire date would be March 1, 2024.
Mahood added that Risk Management has agreed to contribute $32,000 for this
position. Further, Risk Management has committed an additional $118,000 for
needed cybersecurity technology improvements throughout the organization.
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 6 OF 12
Commissioner Chang commented that some Oregon counties have experienced
cyberattacks for ransom. Mahood agreed that monitoring for and mitigating
vulnerabilities requires the expenditure of resources.
CHANG: Move approval of Resolution No. 2023-066, increasing appropriations
and FTE within the 2023-24 Deschutes County Budget for an
Information Security Manager position
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
14. Text Amendment for an Air Traffic Control Tower at the Bend Municipal
Airport
Audrey Stuart relayed a request from the City of Bend for text amendments to
the Airport Development Zone and Airport Safety Combining Zone to allow air
traffic control towers as an outright permitted use in the Airport Development
Zone (i.e., the Bend Municipal Airport), and further allow an air traffic control
tower to be up to 115 feet in height. A public hearing was held before the
Hearings Officer on the requested amendments, after which the Hearings Officer
recommended their approval.
Commissioner DeBone expressed his support for the amendments.
Commissioner Adair added that these are also supported by the Central Oregon
Area Commission on Transportation (COACT).
Noting that the Bend Municipal Airport is one of the busiest in the state,
Commissioner Chang said these changes will improve safety.
CHANG: Move approval of the Hearings Officer recommendation for
file 247-23-000470-TA, approving text amendments to Deschutes
County Code Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone, and
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone
ADAIR: Second
VOTE: ADAIR: Yes
CHANG: Yes
DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried
A break was announced at 10:00 am. The meeting reconvened at 10:10 am.
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 7 OF 12
15. Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Update
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner, explained the procedures for the
hearing.
The public hearing was opened at 10:19 am.
Rawlings introduced Matt Kittelson, consultant from Kittelson & Associates Inc.,
who said the County's Transportation System Plan was last updated about ten
years ago. Saying that the purpose of the 20-year plan is to identify current and
future transportation needs and how those will be met, Kittelson reviewed the
process undertaken for the update —including two open houses and engagement
with partner agencies such as ODOT and the County's Bicycle and Pedestrian
Advisory Committee —and provided a summary of prioritized investments by
project category along with estimated costs.
Commissioner Chang asked why some roads which experience heavy bicycle use
(such as Skyliners Road) are not designated bikeways in the TSP. Road Director
Chris Doty said for the update, previously designated bikeways were carried
forward from the 2010-2030 plan and supplemented by potential new facilities
which would serve to connect one place to another. Doty added that since the
TSP was last adopted, Skyliners Road has been improved to pave the shoulders
with six-foot lanes to accommodate recreational bicycle use.
Continuing, Rawlings referred to written comments submitted prior to the public
hearing which relayed varying perspectives on various issues.
Commissioner Chang described the TSP as a statement of hopes and aspirations
to ensure mobility, safety and access to work, shopping, education, recreation
and healthcare services. While he acknowledged concern about paved pathways,
he said these would not be located on County -owned land and therefore the
County would not fund, build or maintain those.
• Chris Cassard urged adoption of the TSP as drafted and said bicycle and
pedestrian elements in particular support valuable objectives including
economic development and climate resilience. He added that separating
bikes and pedestrians from automobiles greatly improves safety.
• Gary Ross, Sisters City Councilor, read a letter into the record submitted
by the City of Sisters supporting the inclusion of the Sisters to Black Butte
Ranch multi -use path in the TSP.
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 8 OF 12
Commissioner DeBone asked if the City of Sisters discussed possible public safety
impacts of establishing this path. Ross confirmed this was discussed, but he did
not expect that the path would be detrimental to public safety.
• David Amiton, Planning Manager for ODOT Region 4, spoke to the need
for alternative transportation between Bend and Sunriver and said ODOT
prefers that the proposed Lava Butte multi -use path not be restricted to
the west side of 97 as recommended by the Planning Commission; rather,
the preferred alignment would use both the east and west sides of the
highway. Amiton explained that after three alignments were evaluated,
the preferred alignment was determined to have fewer impacts to private
property. It would also avoid safety hazards, integrate more seamlessly
with existing facilities and communities, and offer trail users a better
experience. He concluded that ODOT applied for federal funding in 2018
for this project and has since advanced it to the conceptual design stage.
Commissioner DeBone asked if this trail must be included in the TSP, or if it can
be removed from the plan. Commissioner Chang said another option would be to
leave it in without reference to a specific configuration; Amiton confirmed this
was ODOT's preference.
In response to Commissioner Chang, Assistant Road Director Cody Smith verified
that Cheyenne Road is open to the public.
• Sabrina Haggerty supported the non -motorized bicycle/pedestrian paths
as significant transportation options and said a diverse transportation
network will benefit everyone.
• Gary Ross said removing the proposed multi -use paths from the TSP
would be short-sighted and not benefit residents in the long run. He
added that these facilities will not be established in the near future.
• Matt Cyrus supported the recommendations of the Planning Commission
and said because public trails have a far greater impact on deer than
vehicular traffic, such trails should not be allowed adjacent to resource
lands or within wildlife overlays. With regard to the Sisters to Black Butte
Ranch trail, he said this type of multi -use path creates more homeless
infrastructure. He advocated for limiting designated bikeways to collector
streets or larger.
• Emmy Andrews from the Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA) said COTA
does not support amendments that would reduce bicycle and pedestrian
facilities but does support the proposed footbridge over the Deschutes
River in the Brookswood area. Andrews said alternative modes of
transportation can be achieved in ways that improve conditions for
wildlife or at the least have minimal impacts.
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 9 OF 12
• Rex E. Parks, Sr., president of the Bend chapter of the Oregon Hunters
Association, opposed the Bend to Lava Butte trail as it would have a
negative impact on mule deer habitat. Saying that the added stress of trail
users would accelerate the downward trajectory of the mule deer
population, he emphasized that the proposed trail passes through known
migration routes.
Commissioner Chang asked if ODFW has weighed in on the possible impacts that
extending this trail might have on wildlife migration. Parks said to his knowledge,
it has not.
Responding to Commissioner Chang about the use of underpasses for migration,
Parks said elk will use overpasses but not underpasses, although deer will use
underpasses. Parks added that more wildlife crossings are needed to facilitate
safe migration.
• Susie Hart objected that public notices on this matter were published only
in the Bend Bulletin which has a very limited number of subscribers while
The Source claims a much larger readership. She advocated for
community input on the roundabout proposed for Cook Avenue in
Tumalo, said many wish to maintain Tumalo as a rural area, and said
more CET transit in that area would reduce traffic on both Cook and Cline
roads. She was concerned that the speed limit on Cline Falls Road was
changed to 55 mph when it was redesignated as a highway.
• Randy Windlinx confirmed that Scale House Road is a private road. He
encouraged the protection of resource zones and wildlife overlays and
said the Bend to Lava Butte path should be restricted to the west side of
97. He said multi -use paths are recreational in nature and serve as the
number one cause of wildlife habitat fragmentation.
Responding to Commissioner Chang, Windlinx said many reports have
documented that wildlife habitat fragmentation is primarily attributable to multi-
use paths.
• Jana Johnson, executive director of Deschutes Trails Coalition, said the
Coalition supports the TSP update as drafted to retain the ability to plan
for future trails on resource lands.
• John Schubert urged endorsing and moving forward with separated
bicycle/pedestrian paths between Bend and Lava Butte and between
Sisters and Black Butte Ranch. He said a footbridge over the river might
result in erosion and negative impacts to wildlife.
• Dorinne Tye objected that transportation emissions negatively impact air
quality. She advocated for the health of community members and said
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 10 OF 12
private businesses should be required to comply with EPA regulations and
pay to mitigate negative effects of their operations.
• David Green said cars are expensive and between 15-30% of adults do not
drive. He encouraged new bicycle connections and asked that the Board
approve the TSP as originally drafted.
• Matt Muchna, speaking on behalf of Envision Bend, expressed support for
an interconnected regional trail system.
• David Thomson, chair of the County Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory
Committee (BPAC), supported the "no new roads" policy and the
development instead of new multi -modal transportation facilities,
especially as the County's population will continue to grow. He
encouraged adoption of the plan as presented.
Commissioner DeBone asked if the BPAC has discussed how to fund new
infrastructure. Thomson expected that more state and federal funding will be
available to projects that reduce emissions and said the County should be
competitive in seeking that funding as it becomes available.
• Neil Baunsgard spoke to the importance of safe and accessible multi -use
paths for alternate commuting and active recreation, and said the TSP
should be broadly supportive of such projects. He opposed the Planning
Commission's recommendation to restrict the Bend to Lava Butte path to
the west side of 97.
• Bob Nash, a member of the Redmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee,
supported enhancing safety as well as the livability and connectivity of
communities. He reminded that the proposed multi -use paths are
aspirational and said concerns can be addressed as those projects are
specifically developed.
• Royce Kallerud of Connect Bend said the footbridge across the river has
overwhelming public support and would be funded by the Bend Park &
Recreation District.
There being no one else who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 12:17
pm.
The Board was in consensus to leave the written record on this matter open for
one week until 4 pm on Wednesday, December 6t"
Commissioner Chang proposed that the TSP be modified to not assign priority
ratings to the multi -use paths and also not determine any alignment preferences
for these projects. He supported encouraging all key stakeholders to work
together to resolve and balance the multiple needs of access and habitat
protection while not impacting desired uses on resource zoned lands.
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 11 OF 12
Commissioner Adair expressed concern with traffic at Powell Butte and Highway
126 and spoke to the need for signage warning drivers of elk in the area of
Highways 126 and 20 near Sisters.
OTHER ITEMS:
• Commissioner DeBone extended wishes for a happy 59th wedding anniversary to his
parents.
• Commissioner Adair shared that she expects a response from the Circuit Court in
January regarding whether two floors of the County's courthouse expansion project
would provide sufficient space to enable the expansion of its operations to Central
Oregon.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: None
ADJOURN:
Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:27 pm.
day of
DATED this
Commissioners.
1'44 trzwAd
RECORDING SECRETARY
2023 for the Deschutes County Board of
PATTI ADAIR, VICE CHAIR
PHIL CHANG, COM 4 ISSIONER
BOCC MEETING
NOVEMBER 29, 2023 PAGE 12 OF 12
QBOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
9:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2023
Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Building - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend
(541) 388-6570 I www.deschutes.org
AGENDA
MEETING FORMAT: In accordance with Oregon state law, this meeting is open to the public and
can be accessed and attended in person or remotely, with the exception of any executive session.
Members of the public may view the meeting in real time via YouTube using this link:
http://bit.ly/3mminzy. To view the meeting via Zoom, see below.
Citizen Input: The public may comment on any topic that is not on the current agenda.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted on any topic at any time by emailing
citizeninput@deschutes.org or leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734.
When in -person comment from the public is allowed at the meeting, public comment will also be
allowed via computer, phone or other virtual means.
Zoom Meeting Information: This meeting may be accessed via Zoom using a phone or computer.
• To join the meeting via Zoom from a computer, use this link: http://bit.ly/3h3ogdD.
• To join by phone, call 253-215-8782 and enter webinar ID # 899 4635 9970 followed by the
passcode 013510.
• If joining by a browser, use the raise hand icon to indicate you would like to provide public
comment, if and when allowed. If using a phone, press *6 to indicate you would like to
speak and *9 to unmute yourself when you are called on.
• When it is your turn to provide testimony, you will be promoted from an attendee to a
panelist. You may experience a brief pause as your meeting status changes. Once you
have joined as a panelist, you will be able to turn on your camera, if you would like to.
LI
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all
programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities.
If you need accommodations to make participation possible, call (541) 388-6572 or
email brenda.fritsvold@deschutes.org.
Time estimates: The times listed on agenda items are estimates only. Generally, items will be heard in
sequential order and items, including public hearings, may be heard before or after their listed times.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CITIZEN INPUT: Citizen Input may be provided as comment on any topic that is not on the
agenda.
Note: In addition to the option of providing in -person comments at the meeting, citizen input comments
may be emailed to citizeninput@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Document No. 2023-1023 granting five permanent easements to the Oregon
Department of Transportation over portions of County -owned property, and approval of
Document No. 2023-1024 Terms of State's Offer
2. Approval of County Administrator signature of revised County Finance Policy No. F-15,
Payments to Suppliers
3. Approval of Chair Signature of Document No. 2023-928, a Notice of Intent to Award a
contract for the Smith Rock Way Bridge #15452 Replacement Project
4. Approval of Document No. 2023-1011, an amendment to the interlocal agreement with
the Department of Education for Juvenile Crime Prevention funds
5. Consideration of Board Signature on letter appointing Travis Krieck as the Black Butte
Ranch Rural Fire Protection District representative to the Deschutes County Ambulance
Service Area Committee
6. Approval of minutes of the BOCC October 25 and 30 and November 1, 8 and 13, 2023
meetings
ACTION ITEMS
7. 9:10 AM Public hearing and consideration of Resolution 2023-062 adopting a
supplemental budget and reducing FY24 Beginning Working Capital and
appropriations
Convening as the governing body of the Countywide Law Enforcement District
8. 9:20 AM Consideration of Resolution 2023-063 adopting a supplemental budget which
November 29, 2023
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 2 of 3
recognizes additional funds, reduces FY24 Beginning Working Capital, and
decreases appropriations within the Countywide Law Enforcement District Fund
Convening as the governing body of the Rural Law Enforcement District
9. 9:25 AM Consideration of Resolution 2023-064 adopting a supplemental budget which
recognizes additional funds, reduces FY24 Beginning Working Capital, and
decreases appropriations within the Rural Law Enforcement District Fund
Reconvening as the governing body of Deschutes County
10. 9:30 AM Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption application for Jackstraw development
at 310 & 350 SW Industrial Way
11. 9:35 AM Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2023-025 - Stevens Road Tract Plan
Amendment / Zone Change
12. 9:40 AM Ordinance No. 2023-023 amending Deschutes County Code relating to the
composition of the Historic Landmarks Commission
13. 9:50 AM Resolution No. 2023-066, adding a new position of Information Security
Manager to the IT Department and allocating funds to address immediate
cybersecurity needs
14. 10:00 AM Text Amendment for an Air Traffic Control Tower at the Bend Municipal
Airport
15. 10:10 AM Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Update
OTHER ITEMS
These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of
the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS
192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor
negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories.
Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines,
are open to the media.
ADJOURN
November 29, 2023
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING Page 3 of 3
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2023
SUBJECT: Approval of Count Administrator signature of revised County Finance Policy
No. F-15, Payments to Suppliers
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of County Administrator signature of revised County Finance Policy
No. F-15, Payments to Suppliers, effective January 1, 2024.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On August 16, 2023, the Board conducted a public hearing to review proposed revisions to
the County Contracting Code (DCC 2.36 and DCC 2.37) to implement provisions of SB 1047
and provide for increased signature authority for County departments and the
Administrator. Following the public hearing, the Board approved first reading of Ordinance
No. 2023-012; the Board subsequently approved second reading and adoption of the
ordinance on August 30th. The ordinance takes effect on January 1, 2024.
As a result of these changes, staff reviewed Policy No. F-15, Payments to Suppliers, and
updated this policy in accordance with the revised Contracting Code. The updates are
summarized as follows:
• Increase department head signing authority from $25,000 to $50,000.
• Increase County Administrator signing authority from $150,000 to $250,000.
• Change the Board's authority from items more than $150,000 to items more than
$250,000.
• Added "amendments and/or change orders" language to match the adopted
Ordinance.
• Update the title from 'Finance Director' to 'Chief Financial Officer.'
The policy change is also scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2024.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Robert Tintle, Chief Financial Officer
- ES
Deschutes County Finance Policy No. F-15
a f < Effective Date: 01 /01 /2024
Original Adoption: 07/12/2017
Revised Adoption: 11/29/2023
COUNTY POLICY FOR PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is the policy of Deschutes County to establish and maintain a system of internal controls to
ensure that all disbursements to suppliers are adequately documented, properly authorized
and accurately accounted for in the County's accounting system.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all non -payroll related disbursements in payment for goods and services
procured by the County to carry out its purposes and objectives.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
The County will maintain a system of internal controls that will ensure that payments for goods
and services are properly approved, subject to budgetary limits, and properly documented. The
system of internal controls includes the following.
1. Budget
The County is subject to local budget law requiring an adopted budget before any payments are
made. The budget process involves the Departments, the Board of County Commissioners,
three members of the public serving on the Budget Committee, the County Administrator and
budget staff. The budget is adopted each year in June for the following fiscal year. The adopted
budget is set forth in each budget resolution and adopts the budget at the program level
(personnel, materials and services and capital outlay) for each fund. No expenditures can be
made without the appropriate budget authority. The County accounting system will enforce
budget restrictions on each disbursement.
2. Methods of Procurement
All requests for payment originate in departments with the entry of an invoice to pay for goods
and services. Departments have four options to make payments to vendors for goods and
services received. The four methods include Purchase Orders, Contracts, Direct Invoice
Payments, and Purchasing Cards. All payment methods shall be designed with adequate
internal controls to ensure that goods and services are acceptable for County use before
payment is made, payments are within the appropriate budget authority, payments are
sufficiently documented and verified as legitimate, and payments are properly recorded in the
accounting system.
Policy #F-15, County Policy for Payments to Suppliers Page 1 of 3
3. Vendors
The Finance Department will maintain the vendor file. Staff with access to the vendor file will be
prohibited by system controls from processing any payments to vendors. Departments may
request that vendors be created or updated by making such requests to the Finance
Department. New vendors will be added, and existing vendor files will be updated once those
requests are approved. Vendor taxpayer identification numbers will be secured in the County
system and will be required for every vendor before any payments can be made. Such
information will be verified with the IRS prior to activating a vendor.
4. Accounting System
The Finance Department, with assistance from the IT Department, will maintain the accounting
system to ensure that sufficient internal controls are embedded in the system to properly
account for each transaction and to ensure that each transaction is properly authorized and
documented. The County will use electronic approvals whenever possible to generate a
sufficient audit trail to track each transaction in the system. Payments to vendors may be made
by check, by electronic funds transfer (EFT), or by purchasing card.
5. Departments
Department Heads are responsible for all transactions in their department. Their responsibility
includes ensuring that every obligation is incurred to further the mission of the department and
to carry out the department's Board approved goals and objectives related to the services it
provides. Departments are responsible for entering all payment information in the accounting
system and for approving payments to vendors. Department Heads are authorized to approve
purchase orders, contracts, amendments and/or change orders, or direct payments to vendors
up to $50,000. Department Heads may delegate approval up to $10,000 to Managers in their
department. Such delegation shall be in writing and must be maintained by the Department.
6. Chief Financial Officer
The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for reviewing the list of disbursements each week
prior to the printing of checks to provide an overview of the reasonableness of the payments to
be made. Any payments called into question will be investigated further and may be deferred
pending further inquiries. The Chief Financial Officer shall officially approve the disbursement
as modified before printing checks or releasing electronic payments.
7. County Administrator
The County Administrator is authorized to approve purchase orders, contracts, amendments
and/or change orders, or direct payments to vendors up to $250,000. The system of internal
controls will take this approval level into account and require electronic approvals for each such
transaction by the County Administrator as applicable. The County Administrator will receive a
list of all payments made each week for information purposes and may request additional
information from departments or the Finance Department on any payment.
Policy #F-15, County Policy for Payments to Suppliers Page 2 of 3
8. Board of County Commissioners
The Board of County Commissioners are authorized to approve purchase orders, contracts,
amendments and/or change orders, or direct payments to vendors for more than $250,000.
The system of internal controls will take this approval level into account and require electronic
approvals for each such transaction on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners as
applicable. The Board may request any additional information related to such expenditures
from departments or the Finance Department.
9. Payment Cycle
The County Finance Department will manage the disbursement process. Checks will be issued
on Friday of each week. Only those invoices that have been entered and approved through
workflow by Wednesday at 5:OOpm will be included in the Friday check processing cycle. All
other proposed payments will be held until a later cycle. Manual, out of cycle checks, are
discouraged but may be processed as needed with approval of the Chief Financial Officer.
10. Special Payments
A number of payments are exempt from purchasing and authorization rules and will not be
processed through the normal disbursement process. These include but are not limited to debt
service payments, investment purchases, pass -through payments, software maintenance
agreements and other special payments. The Finance Department will be responsible for
making such payments, recording them in the accounting system and ensuring proper
treatment in the County's financial statements.
Approved by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ond�
Nick Lelack
County Administrator
Policy #F-15, County Policy for Payments to Suppliers Page 3 of 3
-(ES
Deschutes County Finance Policy No. F-15
Q +�r1A► ; Effective Date: 7/12/201701 /01 /2024
Original Adoption: 07/12/2017
Revised Adoption: 11/29/2023
COUNTY POLICY FOR PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is the policy of Deschutes County to establish and maintain a system of internal controls to
ensure that all disbursements to suppliers are adequately documented, properly authorized
and accurately accounted for in the County's accounting system.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all non -payroll related disbursements in payment for goods and services
procured by the County to carry out its purposes and objectives.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
The County will maintain a system of internal controls that will ensure that payments for goods
and services are properly approved, subject to budgetary limits, and properly documented. The
system of internal controls includes the following.
1. Budget
The County is subject to local budget law requiring an adopted budget before any payments are
made. The budget process involves the Departments, the Board of County Commissioners,
three members of the public serving on the Budget Committee, the County Administrator and
budget staff. The budget is adopted each year in June for the following fiscal year. The adopted
budget is set forth in each budget resolution and adopts the budget at the program level
(personnel, materials and services and capital outlay) for each fund. No expenditures can be
made without the appropriate budget authority. The County accounting system will enforce
budget restrictions on each disbursement.
2. Methods of Procurement
All requests for payment originate in departments with the entry of an invoice to pay for goods
and services. Departments have four options to make payments to vendors for goods and
services received. The four methods include Purchase Orders, Contracts, Direct Invoice
Payments, and Purchasing Cards. All payment methods shall be designed with adequate
internal controls to ensure that goods and services are acceptable for County use before
payment is made, payments are within the appropriate budget authority, payments are
sufficiently documented and verified as legitimate, and payments are properly recorded in the
accounting system.
Policy #F-15, County Policy for Payments to Suppliers Page 1 of 3
3. Vendors
The Finance Department will maintain the vendor file. Staff with access to the vendor file will be
prohibited by system controls from processing any payments to vendors. Departments may
request that vendors be created or updated by making such requests to the Finance
Department. New vendors will be added, and existing vendor files will be updated once those
requests are approved. Vendor taxpayer identification numbers will be secured in the County
system and will be required for every vendor before any payments can be made. Such
information will be verified with the IRS prior to activating a vendor.
4. Accounting System
The Finance Department, with assistance from the IT Department, will maintain the accounting
system to ensure that sufficient internal controls are embedded in the system to properly
account for each transaction and to ensure that each transaction is properly authorized and
documented. The County will use electronic approvals whenever possible to generate a
sufficient audit trail to track each transaction in the system. Payments to vendors may be made
by check of by electronic funds transfer (EFT), or by purchasing card.
5. Departments
Department Heads are responsible for all transactions in their department. Their responsibility
includes ensuring that every obligation is incurred to further the mission of the department and
to carry out the department's Board approved goals and objectives related to the services it
provides. Departments are responsible for entering all payment information in the accounting
system and for approving payments to vendors. Department Heads are authorized to approve
purchase orders, contracts, amendments and/or change orders, or direct payments to vendors
up to $2550,000. The Health Department Head is authorized to approve up to $50,000.
Department Heads may delegate approval up to $10,000 to Managers in their department.
Such delegation shall be in writing and must be maintained by the Department.
6. Finance DirectorChief Financial Officer
The Finance DirectorChief Financial Officer is responsible for reviewing the list of
disbursements each week prior to the printing of checks to provide an overview of the
reasonableness of the payments to be made. Any payments called into question will be
investigated further and may be deferred pending further inquiries. The Finance DirectorChief
Financial Officer shall officially approve the disbursement as modified before printing checks or
releasing electronic payments.
7. County Administrator
The County Administrator is authorized to approve purchase orders, contracts, amendments
and/or change orders, or direct payments to vendors up to $1-5-0250,000. The system of internal
controls will take this approval level into account and require electronic approvals for each such
transaction by the County Administrator as applicable. The County Administrator will receive a
list of all payments made each week for information purposes and may request additional
information from departments or the Finance Department on any payment.
Policy #F-15, County Policy for Payments to Suppliers Page 2 of 3
8. Board of County Commissioners
The Board of County Commissioners are authorized to approve purchase orders, contracts,
amendments and/or change orders, or direct payments to vendors for more than $1-54250,000.
The system of internal controls will take this approval level into account and require electronic
approvals for each such transaction on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners as
applicable. The Board may request any additional information related to such expenditures
from departments or the Finance Department.
9. Payment Cycle
The County Finance Department will manage the disbursement process. Checks will be issued
on Friday of each week. Only those invoices that have been entered and approved through
workflow by Wednesday at 5:OOpm will be included in the Friday check processing cycle. All
other proposed payments will be held until a later cycle. Manual, out of cycle checks, are
discouraged but may be processed as needed with approval of the Finance DirectorChief
Financial Officer.
10. Special Payments
A number of payments are exempt from purchasing and authorization rules and will not be
processed through the normal disbursement process. These include but are not limited to debt
service payments, investment purchases, pass -through payments, software maintenance
agreements and other special payments. The Finance Department will be responsible for
making such payments, recording them in the accounting system and ensuring proper
treatment in the County's Ffinancial Sstatements.
Approved by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (date)
Nick Lelack
County Administrator
Policy #F-15, County Policy for Payments to Suppliers Page 3 of 3
Deschutes County Finance Policy No. F-15
Effective Date: 7/12/2017
COUNTY POLICY FOR PAYMENTS TO SUPPLIERS
STATEMENT OF POLICY
It is the policy of Deschutes County to establish and maintain a system of internal controls to
ensure that all disbursements to suppliers are adequately documented, properly authorized and
accurately accounted for in the County's accounting system.
APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to all non -payroll related disbursements in payment for goods and services
procured by the County to carry out its purposes and objectives.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
The County will maintain a system of internal controls that will ensure that payments for goods
and services are properly approved, subject to budgetary limits, and properly documented. The
system of internal controls includes the following.
1. Budget
The County is subject to local budget law requiring an adopted budget before any payments are
made. The budget process involves the Departments, the Board of County Commissioners, three
members of the public serving on the Budget Committee, the County Administrator and budget
staff. The budget is adopted each year in June for the following fiscal year. The adopted budget
is set forth in each budget resolution and adopts the budget at the program level (personnel,
materials and services and capital outlay) for each fund. No expenditures can be made without
the appropriate budget authority. The County accounting system will enforce budget restrictions
on each disbursement.
2. Methods of Procurement
All requests for payment originate in departments with the entry of an invoice to pay for goods
and services. Departments have four options to make payments to vendors for goods and
services received. The four methods include Purchase Orders, Contracts, Direct Invoice
Payments and Purchasing Cards. All payment methods shall be designed with adequate internal
controls to ensure that goods and services are acceptable for County use before payment is made,
payments are within the appropriate budget authority, payments are sufficiently documented and
verified as legitimate and payments are properly recorded in the accounting system.
3. Vendors
The Finance Department will maintain the vendor file. Staff with access to the vendor file will be
prohibited by system controls from processing any payments to vendors. Departments may
request that vendors be created or updated by making such request to the Finance Department.
New vendors will be added and existing vendor files will be updated once those requests are
approved. Vendor taxpayer identification numbers will be secured in the County system and will
be required for every vendor before any payments can be made. Such information will be
verified with the IRS prior to activating a vendor.
4. Accounting System
The Finance Department, with assistance from the IT Department, will maintain the Accounting
system to ensure that sufficient internal controls are embedded in the system to properly account
for each transaction and to ensure that each transaction is properly authorized and documented.
The County will use electronic approvals whenever possible to generate a sufficient audit trail to
track each transaction in the system. Payments to vendors may be made by check or by
electronic funds transfer (EFT).
5. Departments
Department Heads are responsible for all transactions in their department. Their responsibility
includes ensuring that every obligation is incurred to further the mission of the department and to
carry out the department's Board approved goals and objectives related to the services it
provides. Departments are responsible for entering all payment information in the accounting
system and for approving payments to vendors. Department Heads are authorized to approve
purchase orders, contracts or direct payments to vendors up to $25,000. The Health Department
Head is authorized to approve up to $50,000. Department Heads may delegate approval up to
$10,000 to Managers in their department. Such delegation shall be in writing and must be
maintained by the Department.
6. Finance Director
The Finance Director is responsible for reviewing the list of disbursements each week prior to
the printing of checks to provide an overview of the reasonableness of the payments to be made.
Any payments called into question will be investigated further and may be deferred pending
further inquiries. The Finance Director shall officially approve the disbursement as modified
before printing checks or releasing electronic payments.
7. County Administrator
The County Administrator is authorized to approve purchase orders, contract or direct payments
to vendors up to $150,000. The system of internal controls will take this approval level into
account and require electronic approvals for each such transaction by the County Administrator
as applicable. The County Administrator will receive a list of all payments made each week for
information purposes and may request additional information from departments or the Finance
Department on any payment.
8. Board of County Commissioners
The Board of County Commissioners are authorized to approve purchase orders, contracts or
direct payments to vendors for more than $150,000. The system of internal controls will take
this approval level into account and require electronic approvals for each such transaction on
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners as applicable. The Board may request any
additional information related to such expenditures from departments or the Finance Department.
9. Payment Cycle
The County Finance Department will manage the disbursement process. Checks will be issued
on Friday of each week. Only those invoices that have been entered and approved through work
flow by Wednesday at 5:OOpm will be included in the Friday check processing cycle. All other
proposed payments will be held until a later cycle. Manual, out of cycle checks, are discouraged
but may be processed as needed with approval of the Finance Director.
10. Special Payments
A number of payments are exempt from purchasing and authorization rules and will not be
processed through the normal disbursement process. These include but are not limited to debt
service payments, investment purchases, pass through payments, software maintenance
agreements and other special payments. The Finance Department will be responsible for making
such payments, recording them in the accounting system and ensuring proper treatment in the
County's Financial Statements.
Approved by the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Tom Anderson County Administrator
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2023
SUBJECT: Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption application for Jackstraw development at
310 & 350 SW Industrial Way
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of the application from Killian Pacific for a Multiple Unit Property Tax
Exemption relating to property at 310 & 350 SW Industrial Way in Bend.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
In August 2022, the Bend City Council adopted a Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption
(MUPTE) program to support development and redevelopment goals in Bend's core and
transit -oriented areas. The program is available for multi -story residential projects in
certain areas of Bend that provide three or more units and provide at least three defined
public benefits.
The Jackstraw mixed -use project is in the process of building 313 apartment units, 16,019
square feet of retail, 332 bicycle parking spaces, and 457 parking spaces. Additionally, the
project will include construction of a multi -modal publicly accessible shared use drive aisle
and a shared use path. For this project, the three identified public benefits will be:
• High Standard of Energy Efficiency/Green Building Features through Energy
Trust New Buildings Path to Net Zero (priority public benefit);
• Mobility Supportive Amenities; and
• Wrapped Parking Structure.
Numerous additional public benefits beyond the requirements are listed in the
attached project description. According to information submitted by the applicant and
reviewed by an independent financial consultant, this project approaches financial
feasibility only with a MUPTE award, and can still be viewed as a challenged project
with higher risk even with the lowered property tax burden. In order for this project to
qualify for the tax exemption, it must be approved by the boards which represent at least
51% of the combined levy of taxing districts.
More information is available online at:
Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption Program I City of Bend (bendoregon.gov)
BUDGET IMPACTS:
Because this exemption, if approved, would only affect the Bend Urban Renewal Agency's
Core Area Tax Increment Finance Fund, it would not result in direct budget impacts to any
of Deschutes County's taxing districts.
ATTENDANCE:
Nick Lelack, County Administrator
Cate Schneider, Senior Management Analyst, City of Bend
The Jackstraw mixed -use project is located at 310 & 350 SW Industrial Way, between Bend's Old
Mill District and Downtown. The building will have 313 apartment units, 17,500 square feet of
retail, 325 bicycle parking spaces, and 443 parking spaces. Additionally, The Jackstraw includes
construction of a multi -modal publicly accessible Woonerf (living street) along private Lava
Road which connects Arizona Ave to Industrial Way. The project received land -use approval in
September 2022 and has submitted for its building (Phase 2), foundation (Phase 1), and site
improvement (SIMP) permits. As of May 2023, the project has received the infrastructure
(INFR), drainage, grading, and demolition permits. Construction commenced in April 2023 and
completion is anticipated for October 2025.
We will also look at opportunities to provide a percentage of apartments as workforce housing.
The project has selected the Energy Trust New Buildings — Path to Net Zero, Wrapped Parking
Structure, and Mobility Supportive Amenities public benefits, however, we have incorporated
additional public benefits beyond the requirements.
• The project is tracking to be certified LEED Gold for Multifamily and Fitwel.
• The project has also committed to providing 2 townhomes units at 60% of area median
income (AMI) and was granted an expedited review by the housing department.
• These 2 townhomes offered at 60% AMI are designed to allow their tenants to operate in -
home childcare to hopefully make a positive contribution in the face of Bend's childcare
crises.
• The project will be completing major public improvements for Sisemore Street and
Industrial Way, and developing Lava Road as an enhanced privately owned but publicly
accessible multi -modal Woonerf (living street).
• The project will also incorporate public art adjacent to the Lava Road Woonerf and along the
northside of the building that will extend beyond the lifetime of the exemption.
• The project has been engineered to retain and treat stormwater exceeding a 25-year storm
event.
• The project's landscaping will incorporate native, pollinator -friendly and water -wise
landscaping best practices.
• We will also be engaging with a third party to house pollinating beehives onsite.
• We are targeting 25% of total construction costs to be awarded to businesses owned by
underrepresented members of our community including women, minorities, LGBTO
individuals, and persons with disabilities, and 25% of construction journey and apprentice
hours to be completed by underrepresented members of those same communities.
• Car charging stations to accommodate 31 electric vehicles will be provided with an
additional 31 parking stalls accommodating slower -speed Level 2 electric vehicle car
charging. Additionally, conduit will be constructed to allow for easier installation of car
charging stations in the future.
Last Revised Date: 11/15/2022
Economic Development Division
City of Bend
mupte@bendoregon.gov
710 NW Wall Street, Bend OR 97703
This submittal form is to be completed as part of your Multiple Unit Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE)
application with the City of Bend. Download this form before completing fillable fields, then upload with your
application through the Online Permit Center at www.bendoregon.gov/permitcenter.
MUPTE PUBLIC BENEFITS CHECKLIST
Use the following checklist to identify which public benefits you plan to utilize to meet the public benefit
requirements of the MUPTE program as defined in Bend Code 12.35.025 and further explained in the MUPTE
Program Guidelines. Projects must provide a minimum of three public benefits including at least one
priority public benefit.
Priority Public Benefits (must select at least one)
❑ 10% of units deed -restricted as Affordable Housing
❑ 30% of units deed -restricted as Middle Income Housing
❑ Childcare Facilities
O Open Space and Publicly Accessible Park or Plaza Space
O Please confirm that you have a letter from Bend Park and Recreation District included in your
application.
II High Standard of Energy Efficiency/Green Building Features (if yes, please select which
pathway)
• Energy Trust New Buildings Path to Net Zero
❑ LEED Platinum
❑ Earth Advantage Platinum or higher
Additional Public Benefits
❑ Energy Efficiency/Green Building Features (if yes, select which pathway)
❑ Energy Trust of Oregon New Building Whole Building
❑ Energy Trust Multifamily Market Solutions Best
❑ Earth Advantage Silver or higher
❑ LEED Silver or higher
❑ Solar installation that will supply some of the building's energy using solar
❑ Transit Supportive Amenities
❑ Please confirm you have a letter from Cascade East Transit to include in your
application.
❑✓ Mobility Supportive Amenities
❑ Ground floor commercial (more than 35% of the ground floor as commercial uses)
BLDG — Commercial Submittal Checklist
Page 1 of 3
Last Revised Date: 11/15/2022
❑ Stormwater
❑ Confirm that you have submitted stormwater credit program application form as
part of your application
❑ Environmental Remediation
❑ Confirm that you have submitted documentation of recent site clean up efforts
and current DEQ status of site.
Public Facilities
Please provide a short description of proposed public facility:
Enhanced Landscaping
❑ Please confirm that you have submitted landscape plan as part of site plan
❑ Please confirm that you have submitted a proposed water budget as part of your
application
Electric Vehicle (EV) charging
Wrapped Parking Structure
Other Public Benefit (must be authorized by City Council)
If using this, please provide a description of the proposed public benefit:
BLDG — Commercial Submittal Checklist
Page 2 of 3
w
01
15 .000JSIS MN
JJ VATI MN
6
2
43- I .
/ -0 -0-
AVM ivimisna N I
0 0
'
0 0000000000000
— eice x tvc ,cus
w
MV21.1.SN3vr
,"^"","^AVE
VAV1 MN • AN3NOOM
0
uJ
1- 7,
REVIEW OF FINANCIAL
FEASIBILITY
JACKSTRAW PROJECT
KILLIAN DEVELOPMENT
MUPTE PROGRAM
APPLICATION
Prepared for: City of Bend, Oregon
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Contents
1. Executive Summary 1
Introduction 1
Summary of Findings 1
2. Financial Feasibility Analysis 2
Financial Feasibility ("Pro Forma") Assumptions 2
Debt vs. Equity & Project Financing 2
Development Costs 3
Assumed Rents & Escalation 4
Non -Rent Revenues 5
Operating Expenses 5
Financial Feasibility Analysis of the Jackstraw Project 6
Introduction to Terms 6
Jackstraw Project Pro Forma Without MUPTE 8
Jackstraw Project Pro Forma WITH MUPTE 8
Page ii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
1. Executive Summary
Introduction
PNW ECONOMICS, LLC was retained by the City of Bend to review the Killian Development Jackstraw
Project Multi -Unit Property Tax Exemption ("MUPTE") program application as part of City review of
the project application. Specifically, PNW ECONOMICS was tasked with:
• Reviewing project application assumptions including rent income, non -rent income, operating
expenses, bank underwriting assumptions, and other pertinent assumptions;
• Evaluating projected return on investment for the project without MUPTE and with MUPTE,
which grants a ten-year property tax exemption for the project in order to incentivize its
financial performance such that investment and development is possible and positively
contributes to the Bend economy in place of property underutilization; and
• Communicating all analysis and findings appropriately for review by community members
and elected officials.
This document represents completion of these tasks for review by the City of Bend and its partners
and stakeholders.
Summary of Findings
An independent pro forma analysis was conducted by PNW ECONOMICS for the proposed Jackstraw
project in the Old Mill District of Bend. The following table provides a concise summary of the
outcome of not awarding and awarding a MUPTE to the project, which comprises 313 apartment units
and 17,50o square feet of retail space.
Table 1 - Jackstraw Project Measures of Return With & Without MUPTE: 313 Units & 17,500 Sq. Ft. Retail
NO MUPTE
Net Operating Income (NOI)
Total Development Cost
Residential Retail Total
$6,878,606 $691,909 $7,570,515
$171,197,197
Return on Investment (Cost) NO MUPTE 4.4%
YES MUPTE Residential Retail Total
Net Operating Income (NOI) $8,056,220 $734,534 $8,790,754
Total Development Cost
$171,197,197
Return on Investment (Cost) - MUPTE 5.1%
Page 1
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
Without MUPTE Conclusion: The Jackstraw project has very challenging financial feasibility on
its own.
• Employing a minimum Return on Investment (Cost) measure of return of 6% as a result of
thumb for project pursuit, the Jackstraw project's income does not justify its operating
expenses, with an ROI of only 4.4%. The rule -of -thumb minimum ROI of 6% would indicate
the project would be difficult to pull, all things equal.
With MUPTE Conclusion: The Jackstraw project approaches financial feasibility with the
MUPTE and only with the tax exemption compared to the No MUPTE scenario.
• A MUPTE awarded that would reduce a roughly $1.2 million property tax burden for the
development is estimated to enhance ROI for the project to 5.1% compared to 4.4% without
the MUPTE.
• Although a MUPTE award would significantly enhance expected feasibility of the project and
enhance assurance of its success, the estimated ROI with the MUPTE still does not fully rise to
the applied 60/o rule -of -thumb minimum. In other words, the MUPTE is a critical aid in this
project happening, but it can still be viewed as a challenged project with higher risk.
Review of all development and financial assumptions in the MUPTE Application for the Jackstraw
project yielded the following other general finds and comments:
• The Jackstraw project has rents and operating assumptions that are seemingly consistent with
market conditions in Bend among newer projects.
• Development costs of the project are seemingly consistent with current construction market
conditions, as verified by a comparable, planned project in the Eugene downtown market.
Otherwise overall, it was found that the Jackstraw MUPTE Application financial analysis used
reasonable assumptions. Much of the independent pro forma analysis in this report utilizes similar
assumptions as the Applicant. Differences in assumptions are noted in this document. The most
notable difference would be that PNW ECONOMICS estimates property tax burden of this project, and
the value of the MUPTE, are slightly higher than estimated by the Applicant.
2. Financial Feasibility Analysis
Financial Feasibility("Pro Forma") Assumptions
Debt vs. Equity & Project Financing
Table 2 provides a summary of project permanent financing assumptions considered in this analysis.
The Applicant documents that 49% of total development cost will be debt financed, while 51% will be
equity -financed. Although extremely unusual just a few years ago, a 50%-50% debt and equity split is
consistent with observed market on other projects.
Page 2
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
Table 2 — Jackstraw Project Permanent Debt Finance Assumptions
Total Development Cost
Permanent Loan
Equity
Percent Financed
313 Units
2023 Dollars
$171,197,197
$84, 000, 000
$87,197,197
49%
Development Costs
The Applicant declares in the Jackstraw MUPTE application a total development cost of $174,197,198
development cost for the 313-unit, 480,00o square -foot improvement. The project's more urban
orientation, combined parking structure and size make it a bit incomparable to Bend projects of recent
development for comparisons. Accordingly, PNW Economics compares the project to the Riverfront 3A
mixed -use development in Eugene as somewhat of a peer comparable for size, parking, mix of uses,
and vintage of cost information. Table 3 provides a comparison of both projects with appropriate
details.
The Jackstraw project overall has development cost metrics not unlike the peer reviewed Eugene
Riverfront 3A project.
• Total Cost per Unit: $546,956 (Jackstraw) vs. $534,904 (Riverfront 3A)
• Total Cost per Sq. Ft.: $357 (Jackstraw) vs. $464 (Riverfront 3a)
Table 3 — Jackstraw Project Permanent Debt Finance Assumptions
Eugene
Riverfront 3A
237
272,983
Units
Total Sq. Ft.
Land Acquisition
Hard Costs
Soft Costs & Contingencies
Total Development Costs
Total Cost Per Unit
Total Cost per Sq. Ft.
Bend
Jackstraw
313
480,000
$7,662,931
$127,186,251
836,348, 016
$171,197,198
$546,956
$357
$2, 782, 504
$96,444,138
$27, 545. 538
$126,772,180
$534,904
$464
Both projects have similar scale, though Jackstraw is larger: more residential units, slightly more
commercial space, and certainly more parking spaces. Per square foot costs are lower at Jackstraw,
though cost per unit is higher at Jackstraw largely by virtue of a larger parking garage and public
street improvements taken on by Jackstraw that the Eugene project does not have. On the other hand,
the Eugene project had significant non -clean fill soil removal and at -cost disposal costs. Overall, the
Page 3
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
cost comparison indicates Jackstraw development costs are on -par with market for larger mid -rise,
mixed -use redevelopment in urban Oregon markets.
Assumed Rents & Escalation
Table 4 provides a summary of apartment rents utilized in the pro forma analyses in this section.
Rents assumed are planned rents for each of the unit types as proposed by the Applicant. Annually
after 2023, rents are assumed to escalate by 3% annually.
Table 4 - Jackstraw Project Market Apartment Rent Assumptions - 313 Units
MARKET RATE
Unit Type
Unit Mix
Units
Percentage
Average Unit
Size (Sq. Ft.)
Monthly
Rent
Rent per
Square Foot
Studio
One bedroom
Two bedroom
Three bedroom
Subtotals/Averages
15
189
91
16
311
5%
61%
29%
5%
100%
483
669
1,091
1,460
$1,824
$2,167
$2,993
83,360
$3.78
$3.24
$2.74
$2.30
824
$2,453
$2.98
INCOME RESTRICTED
Unit Type
Unit Mix
Units
Percentage
Average Unit
Size (Sq. Ft.)
Monthly
Rent
Rent per
Square Foot
Studio
One bedroom
Two bedroom (TH)
Subtotals/Averages
0
0
2
2
0%
0%
100%
0
0
1,481
$0
$0
$1,080
$0.00
$0.00
50.73
100%
1,481
$1,080
$0.73
Rents overall appear slightly higher than most other new market rate projects, though that is to be
expected from under construction/newest product being delivered to the market. The Jackstraw
project also has superior mixed -use district location, grocery store proximity and river/trail compared
to most other newer projects, thus some kind of rent premium for superior location would be
expected. Examples of going market projects include:
• The Nest (i6og SW Chandler Avenue, Bend): 1,049 square foot 2 bed/2 bath for $2,637
average ($2.51 per square foot)
• Solis at Petrosa (63190 Deschutes Market Road):
o 62o square foot 1 bed/1 bath for $1,77o average ($2.85 per square foot).
o 9o1 square foot (average) 2 bed/2 bath for $2,25o average ($2.5o per square foot).
o 1,109 square foot 3 bed/2 bath for $2,545 ($2.29 per square foot).
• The Eddy Apartments (8oi SW Bradbury Way): 64o square foot 1 bed/i bath for $1,800
average ($2.81 per square foot).
As was stated, Jackstraw rents are slightly higher than current market rents at newer projects. Between
a rent premium for being the absolutely newest project in the peer group, as well as having the best
single location for a mixed -use project in the Old Mill District, slightly higher rents at Jackstraw should
be expected. From a MUPTE-modeling perspective, higher rents in the pro forma will tend to make the
need for a MUPTE less likely. That is, higher rent income will tend to increase cash flow for a project
Page 4
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
after debt service is accounted. Project rents that are inexplicably low relative to market would run the
risk of overstating MUPTE need. That is not the case here.
Non -Rent Revenues
Table 5 summarizes the various sources of revenue for the project in addition to standard rent planned
for the occupancy for units. The key feature of the project will be secured parking (212 spaces) for
residential tenants for $15o per space in 2023, as well as 133 spaces for $75 per month as an option for
residents, but with shared access with visitors. Retail tenants and customers will not pay parking fees
under the Jackstraw plan.
Table 5 - Jackstraw Project Mixed -Use Non -Rent Income Assumptions
Non -Rent Revenue
Monthly Jackstraw - Annual
Jackstraw Units 2023
Parking - Residential
Parking - Shared Residential
Other (Misc. Fees, Deposits)
Total Non -Rent Revenue:
$150 212 $381,600
$75 133 $119,700
$739.103
$1,240,403
Operating Expenses
Apartment Operating Expenses
Table 6 below provides a comparison of annual operations expenses per unit anticipated by the
Applicant. For context, annual per -unit operating expenses for Penn Avenue, a different proposed
apartment project applying for a City of Bend MUPTE as well as recent urban apartment MUPTE
applicants in the City of Eugene are compared. Based upon these findings, it was assumed that
operations expenses at the project are reasonable if not somewhat low, though the larger scale of the
development allows lower cost -per -unit spread.
Table 6 - Jackstraw Project Operating Expenses Per Unit vs. Comparable Projects
Per Unit Expenses Annually
Jackstraw Penn Avenue Eugene Projects*
Before Property Tax
Expenses: Stabilized $4,903 $4,679 $6,700
*Non-55+ active community projects
For pro forma financial analysis in the next section of this report, PNW ECONOMICS assumes operating
expenses supplied by the Applicant. While a bit lower, lower estimated expenses will tend to give more
optimistic financial performance projections that would tend to reduce the importance of tax
exemption on the bottom line, all things equal. It is also acknowledged that annually, the Jackstraw
project expects $75,056 in annual operating expenses for the 17,5oo square feet of planned retail
($4.29 per square foot annually, or $0.36 per square foot monthly). Relatively speaking, retail
operating expenses are minor compared to the much larger residential units' operating expenses
attribution and do not seem unreasonable.
Page 5
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
Property Taxes
Table 7 provides estimates for property taxes that will be paid on both the land as well as expected
improvements value on a "Cost of Replacement" basis - the total development cost of improvements
alone if built new.
Parcel taxable assessed value (TAV) data is directly from the Deschutes County Assessor's Office parcel
database online (DIAL). Taxable assessed value estimated for the value of improvements assumes total
improvement development costs as expressed by the Applicant and then converted to Measure 5o TAV
via the Deschutes County 2023 Multifamily Exception Value Ratio of o.461 and Commercial Exception
Value Ratio of o.441. Finally, the tax rate of $15.8378 per $1,000 of TAV was utilized for Tax Code Area
1128 that includes the project addresses of 310 SW Industrial and 35o SW Industrial in Bend, Oregon.
Table 7 -Jackstraw Project Estimated Property Tax: Land & Improvements in FY 23
Cost of Replacement - Improvements
Exception Value Ratio - Multifamily (7)
FY 23 Taxable Assessed Value
Cost of Replacement - Retail Improvements
Exception Value Ratio - Commercial (2)
FY 23 Taxable Assessed Value
Parcel Account # Acres
310 SW Industrial Way 167373 2.15 301 - Industrial
Zonina
$157,572,080
0�61.
$72,640,729
$5,962,187
0.441
$2,629,324
Taxable Assessed Value (FY 23)
Land Improvements Total
$469,390 $0 $469,390
Tax Code Area 1128 (per $1,000 TAV) 15.8378 15.8378 15.8378
Total Property Tax - Land Only $7,434 $0 $7,434
350 SW Industrial Way 167955 2.73 231 - Commercial $1,306,550 $0 $1,306,550
Tax Code Area 1128 (per $1,000 TAV) 15.8378 15.8378 15.8378
Total Property Tax - Land Only $20,693 $0 $20,693
310-350 SW Industrial Way
4.88 231 -Commercial $1,775,940 $75,270,053 $77,045,993
Tax Code Area 1128 (per $1,000 TAV) 15.8378 15.8378 15.8378
Total Property Tax - Combined $28,127 $1,192,112 $1,220,239
Financial Feasibility Analysis of the Jackstraw Project
Introduction to Terms
To evaluate whether or not a project is financially feasible, that is whether or not the project meets
investment rates of return benchmarks, a pro forma analysis is conducted. A pro forma is simply a
financial modeling exercise to examine how a development project performs as a business investment
over a specified period of time.
Variables that are modeled, or estimated, in this report are as follows:
Apartment Rent Income: The annual rent income if all apartment units in a project were occupied and
charging full, assumed market rent.
Page 6
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
Gross Project Income: The sum of Apartment Rent Income, Retail Lease Income and Other Income
streams such as parking, storage fees, electric vehicle parking fees, bike storage fees, electric bike
charging fees and other related fee streams.
Vacancy: 5% of apartment space and retail space is assumed to always be vacant and represent
income loss.
Lease -Up Vacancy & Concessions: This category of expense reflects different sources of loss to revenue
as a result of project vacancy and discounts to apartment rents to realize and keep an average 5%
vacancy rate.
Effective Gross Income: Gross Project Income less Vacancy and Lease -Up Vacancy & Concessions.
Apartment Operating Expense: Annual operating expenses of $4,903 per apartment unit starting in
year 1.
Retail Operating Expense: $4.29 per square foot annually in retail space operating expenses for the
project.
MUPTE: When included, MUPTE is a io-year exemption from local property taxes levied on the value
of the improvement constructed in place, in this case the Jackstraw project. Based on an estimated
cost -of -replacement of $75,270,053 million in 2023 dollars and a local, existing total property tax rate
of $0.0158378 (Tax Code Area 1128), the estimated MUPTE exemption beginning in year 1 would be
$1,220,239. This would increase by an assumed 3% annually, consistent with the annual maximum
under Oregon property tax law.
Net Operating Income (NOI): Effective Gross Income less Project Operating Expense plus the MUPTE
(if assumed).
Equity: The share of total development cost that is funded by invested dollar assets rather than by
debt.
Debt Service: The annual, fixed debt service payment made by the developer for permanent debt
financing of the project.
Return on Investment (Cost): The measure of financial return for the real estate development in
question of this analysis, Jackstraw. The Applicant reports Net Operating Income and total
development costs, leaving the primary measure of return for evaluation for the project to be Return
on Investment. ROI is calculated as Net Operating Income divided by Total Development Cost. There is
no hard rule for acceptable ROI for a real estate development project, but a common minimum ROI for
moving forward with a development is 6%. Developers will vary on required ROI to go through with a
project, but a minimum of 6% is a common minimum.
Page 7
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
Jackstraw Project Pro Forma Without MUPTE
Table 8 reports the Return on Investment (Cost) pro forma for the Jackstraw project without a
MUPTE.
Table 8 - Jackstraw Project NOI and ROI Without MUPTE
Residential Retail
Income
Lease Income
Other Income
Less: Vacancy Loss
Gross Income
Expenses
Pre -Tax Operating Expenses
Property Taxes
MUPTE Awarded
Capital Reserves
Total Operating Expenses
$9,159,010
$1,002,453
($508.073)
$9, 653, 390
($1,534,570)
($1,177,614)
$0`
($62.600)
($2,774,784)
Net Operating Income (NOI) $6,878,606
Total Development Cost
$614,250
$237,950
(842.610)
$809,590
($75,056)
($42,625)
$0`
:
($117,681)
Total
$9, 773, 260
$1,240,403
($550,683)
$10,462,980
($1, 609, 626)
($1,220,239)
$0';
($62.600)
($2, 892, 465)
$7,570,515
$171,197,197
Return on Investment (Cost) - NO MUPTE 4.4%
Combining all development assumptions of the Applicant reviewed in this document, a well as some
calculations that slightly vary from Applicant math - namely the likely property tax generated by the
development based on cost of replacement - project ROI without a MUPTE is calculated to be 4.4%.
$691,909
4.4% is certainly below the rule -of -thumb minimum ROI of 6% for a project to get lending and/or
equity investment. The project without a MUPTE would be considered a challenging project to finance
and/or would require very patient capital for equity investment.
PNW ECONOMICS figures vary a bit from Applicant documentation, namely in attribution of taxable
land value to portions of the project, whether residential or retail. This report also estimates that
property tax owed on the project will be slightly higher than what the Applicant has estimated. This
greater tax owed in this analysis would only serve to show the MUPTE is more consequential than
what the Applicant demonstrates.
Jackstraw Project Pro Forma WITH MUPTE
Table 9 reports the Return on Investment (Cost) pro forma for the Jackstraw project with a MUPTE.
All operations findings are the same as the Without MUPTE scenario, except for the addition of the
Page 8
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
property tax exemption each year equal to the value of the property taxes paid on improvements put
in place.
Table 9 - Jackstraw Project NOI and ROI WITH MUPTE
Residential Retail Total
Income
Lease Income
Other Income
Less: Vacancy Loss
Gross Income
$9,159,010
$1, 002,453
(8508.073)
$9,653,390
$614,250 $9,773,260
$237,950 $1,240,403
($42,610) ($550.683)
$809,590 $10,462,980
Expenses
Pre -Tax Operating Expenses ($1,534,570) ($75,056) ($1,609,626)
Property Taxes ($1,177,614) ($42,625) ($1,220,239)
MUPTE Awarded $1,177,614 $42,625 $1,220,239
Capital Reserves ($62,600) L j$62,600)
Total Operating Expenses ($1,597,170) ($75,056) ($1,672,226)
Net Operating Income (N01) $8,056,220 $734,534 $8,790,754
Total Development Cost $171,197,197
Return on Investment (Cost) - MUPTE 5.1 °%o
Assuming a MUPTE is awarded to the project, Net Operating Income for the Jackstraw is enhanced by
more than $1.2 million. The result is a Return on Investment (Cost) for the project with a MUPTE
equal to 5.1% in this analysis.
Award of a MUPTE certainly enhances the ROI for the project closer to the minimum rule -of -thumb
6%. The MUPTE does not, however, push the rate of return over the minimum threshold but makes
the project significantly more compelling as an investment.
As already noted, different developers will use not only different measures of return, but also different
criteria for a minimum and/or successful rate of return for that measure. This analysis employs a rule -
of -thumb minimum of 6% return on cost for a project to be worth the risk. On this measure alone,
MUPTE makes the Jackstraw project significantly more compelling than without the MUPTE. If the
Applicant internally employs a lower threshold ROI for project evaluation, such as 5%, then it can be
said the MUPTE not only makes the project more compelling but certainly assures the project would
worth the risk and expense in a way that would not be possible without the MUPTE.
Page 9
Prepared for: City of Bend
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Financial Feasibility Review of Killian Development Jackstraw Project MUPTE Program Application
*ADDED* 11/29/2023 Item #10.
PNW Economics
Evidenced -Based Real Estate, Land Use, & Economic Development Due Diligence
MEMORANDUM
To:
Cate Schneider
Senior Management Analyst
CITY OF BEND, OREGON
From: Bill Reid, Principal
PNW ECONOMICS, LLC
Subject: Revised MUPTE Return on Investment Findings: Jackstraw Project
Date: November 21, 2023
This memorandum summarized revised return on investment calculations for the Jackstraw project in Bend,
Oregon for the purposes of Mixed -Use Property Tax Exemption (MUPTE) benefit consideration by the City of
Bend and its partners.
On October 7, 2023, PNW Economics submitted to the City of Bend a review of Jackstraw development
MUPTE application financial pro formas required by City ordinance for the MUPTE incentive program. On
November 20, 2023 City of Bend staff identified two math errors in the findings of that October 2023 review.
The identified errors in Table 9 of the October 2023 review were as follows:
• MUPTE on the taxable assessed value of land upon which the Jackstraw project would be built: A
tax exemption of $28,127 starting in 2023 was erroneously credited to the Jackstraw project as part
of return on investment calculations. MUPTE should not apply to the value of land, only
improvements put into place. The error has been corrected in Table 1 of this memorandum.
• MUPTE on the taxable assessed value of commercial retail development in the Jackstraw project: A
tax exemption of $42,625 for the taxable assessed value of the retail commercial component was
erroneously credited to the Jackstraw project as part of return on investment calculations. The
MUPTE, per State statue, does apply to the retail commercial portion of the project. The error has
been corrected in Table 1 of this memorandum.
Table 1 on the following page provides revised calculations of Return on Investment (Return on Cost) that
should replace Table 9 in the October 2023 MUPTE review of the Jackstraw. In combined total, correction of
the errors above reduce the value of the MUPTE for the Jackstraw project by $70,752. This has the following
effects upon ROI calculations:
• Revised MUPTE of $1,149,487 awarded to the Jackstraw (and increasing by Measure 50-allowed 3%
annually thereafter);
• Total Operating Expenses increased to $1,742,978;
• Net Operating Income (NOI) decreased to $8,720,002;
• Return on Investment (Cost) with a MUPTE of 5.1%.
In what may seem surprising, the ROI with a MUPTE did not change from the previous rounded calculation of
5.1%. This is so because despite a reduction in the MUPTE of $70,752, the Jackstraw project is both so
Prepared for: City of Bend, Oregon
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Revised MUPTE Award and Return on Investment Calculations for the Jackstraw Project
PNW Economics
expensive to develop ($171.2 million) and annual Net Operating Income is so large ($8.72 million), that the
downward correction of the MUPTE award is basically rounding error on the ROI calculation. In fact, not
rounding ROI to one decimal place would display the following:
• ROI before error correction: 5.135%
• ROI after error correction: 5.09%
Table 1 — Revised Return on Investment (Return on Cost) Calculation for the Jackstraw: Yes for a MUPTE
Residential Retail Total
Income
Lease Income
Other Income
Less: Vacancy Loss
Gross Income
Expenses
Pre -Tax Operating Expenses
Property Taxes
MUPTE Awarded
Capital Reserves
Total Operating Expenses
YES MUPTE
Net Operating Income (NOI)
$9,159,010
$1,002,453
($508.073)
$9,653,390
$614,250
$237,950
(842.610)
$809,590
($1,534,570) ($75,056)
($1,177,614) ($42,625)
$1,149,487 $0
(862.600)
($1,625,297) ($117,681)
Residential Retail
$8,028,093 $691,909
$9,773,260
$1,240,403
(8550.683)
$10,462, 980
($1,609,626)
($1,220,239)
$1,149,487
(862.600)
($1, 742, 978)
Total
$8,720,002
Total Development Cost $171,197,197
Return on Investment (Cost) - MUPTE 5.1%
We hopes this clarifies the issue for the City of Bend and its partners, and we apologize for the math error.
Page 2
Prepared for: City of Bend, Oregon
Prepared by: PNW Economics, LLC
Revised MUPTE Award and Return on Investment Calculations for the Jackstraw Project
��ES
0
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2023
SUBJECT: Text Amendment for an Air Traffic Control Tower at the Bend Municipal Airport
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Move approval of Hearings Officer recommendation for file 247-23-000470-TA, approving a
Text Amendment to Deschutes County Code Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone,
and Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Staff will provide background to the Board for consideration of a request for a Text
Amendment (file no. 247-23-000470-TA) to the Airport Development Zone and Airport
Safety Combining Zone. The proposed amendments would add an air traffic control tower
as a use permitted outright in the Airport Development Zone, and allow an air traffic
control tower to be up to 115 feet in height. The Airport Development Zone only applies to
the Bend Municipal Airport, which is located to the northeast of Bend.
A public hearing on the Text Amendment application was held before the Deschutes
County Hearings Officer on October 2, 2023. A Hearings Officer recommendation was
mailed on November 21, 2023, and the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the
subject application.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
None
ATTENDANCE:
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
TES
MUNITY IE`tELOPME! T
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
DATE: November 20, 2023
RE: Consideration of whether to initiate review of a Text Amendment request; Land use
file no. 247-23-000470-TA.
On November 29, 2023, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") will consider whether to
initiate review of a Hearings Officer's recommendation to approve a Text Amendment to the Airport
Development (AD) Zone and Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone. The proposed amendments will
add an air traffic control tower as an allowed use and allow an air traffic control tower to be up to
115 feet in height.
I. IMPACTED PROPERTIES
The AD Zone applies to one airport in Deschutes County —the Bend Municipal Airport. The AD Zone
encompasses 340 acres and consists of three zoning districts. The Bend Municipal Airport includes
the following tax lots, though staff notes there may be multiple addresses assigned to each tax lot.
• 1713200000200 - 63155 Gibson Air Rd
• 1713200000201 - 63110 Powell Butte Hwy
• 171317C000100 - 63205 Gibson Air Rd
• 1713170000200 - 63482 Powell Butte Hwy
• 1713200000202 - 22550 Nelson PI
• 1713200000300 - 63144 Powell Butte Hwy
The City of Bend operates the Bend Municipal Airport and is the only property owner impacted by
the proposed amendments.
II. PROPOSAL
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
t ' (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@deschutes .org q www.deschutes.org/cd
The Applicant requests amendments to the AD Zone (DCC 18.76) and the AS Combining Zone (DCC
18.80). The proposed Code changes are included in this packet as an attachment to the Hearings
Officer's recommendation. The proposed Text Amendment is summarized as follows:
• The Applicant proposes to add a definition for Airport Traffic Control Tower.
• The Applicant proposes to add an Air Traffic Control Tower as a new use permitted outright
in the AD Zone.
• The Applicant proposes to allow Air Traffic Control Towers up to 115 feet in height.
A staff report was mailed on September 25, 2023, and staff found the proposal complied with all
applicable provisions of Deschutes County Code, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies,
and applicable State laws. A public hearing was held before a Hearings Officer on October 2, 2023,
and a Hearing's Officer recommendation approving the application was mailed on November 21,
2023. As described below, the Board may decide to either adopt the Hearings Officer's findings or
initiate review of the decision.
The application materials state that an air traffic control tower is needed for safe airport operations.
The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) has accepted the Bend Municipal Airport as a candidate into
the Federal Contract Tower Program, and the City of Bend completed a siting study and
Environmental Assessment as required by FAA. The City of Bend has until October 14, 2025, to finish
constructing the control tower approved by this program.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
One member of the public submitted written comments in opposition to the proposal, and this
member of the public also provided oral testimony at the October 2, 2023, hearing. The issues raised
include health and safety concerns about airport operations, impacts on surrounding property
owners, and concerns with the Bend Municipal Airport's current flight pattern.
The public agencies that submitted written comments were Deschutes County Transportation
Planning, Deschutes County Building Division, Central Oregon Irrigation District, and the Oregon
Department of Aviation. The applicant also submitted materials from FAA demonstrating their
coordination on the proposed air traffic control tower.
IV. BOARD OPTIONS
The Hearings Officer finds, and staff concurs, that the proposed Text Amendment meets the
definition of a quasi-judicial amendment but also has qualities of a legislative amendment. Pursuant
to DCC 22.28.030(A) and DCC 22.12.050, the Board must take final action on amendments to
Deschutes County Code. The subject application was processed as a quasi-judicial application and
the Hearings Officer issued a recommendation, as only the Board has the authority to take final
action on any Text Amendment. The Board may choose to adopt the Hearings Officer's
recommendation or the Board may choose to initiate review and conduct a new public hearing.
Reasons not to hear
247-23-000470-TA Page 2 of 4
Members of the public were notified of the subject application through a mailed Notice of
Application, posted land use sign, mailed Notice of Public Hearing, project webpage, and posting in
the Bend Bulletin. Public testimony was taken at the Hearings Officer hearing, and the Hearings
Officer responded in length to issues raised in opposition. One member of the public testified in
opposition and that was the only member of the public to provide comments.
The proposed language for DCC 18.76 and DCC 18.80 has been through multiple rounds of edits
and is acceptable to Planning Division staff. At the hearing on October 2, 2023, the Hearings Officer
also suggested edits and these were incorporated into the final version. Staff also notes that airport
uses are regulated by the FAA and the Oregon Department of Aviation. Compared to other zones
regulated by DCC, uses in the AD Zone are substantially limited by state and federal regulations.
The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Oregon Department of Aviation, who generally
support the amendments.
Staff and the Applicant are satisfied with the proposed Code language and the Hearings Officer's
recommendation. The Hearings Officer's findings provided a thorough analysis and could be
supported, as the record exists today, on appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.
Reasons to hear
The Board may want to take testimony and make interpretations relating to the Hearings Officer's
recommendation. The Board may also want to reinforce or refute some or all of the recommended
findings/interpretations prior to Land Use Board of Appeals review. The member of the public who
testified in opposition submitted a number of different arguments, which the Board may choose to
review further. The Board may also choose to hold their own public hearing in order to provide
more opportunities for public input.
If the Board decides to adopt the Hearings Officer's findings, a draft Ordinance will be prepared that
incorporates the Hearings Officer recommendation as findings. Staff would then return to the Board
for a first and second reading of that draft Ordinance approving the proposed Text Amendment.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff agrees with the Hearing's Officer decision and therefore recommends the Board decline to
initiate review. The proposed edits to the DCC have been reviewed by the Planning Division, the
airport sponsor, and applicable agencies and were found to be acceptable. As described by the
Hearings Officer, many of the issues raised in opposition were not connected to applicable approval
criteria and were outside the scope of this review. Therefore, the Board may be limited in its ability
to address these issues if raised again during a public hearing before the Board.
VI. 150-DAY LAND USE CLOCK
Pursuant to DCC 22.20.040(D)(1), the subject application is exempt from the 150-day land use clock.
VII. RECORD
247-23-000470-TA Page 3 of 4
The record for File No. 247-23-000470-TA is as presented at the following Deschutes County
Community Development Department website:
https://www.desch utes.o rg/cd/page/247-23-000470-ta-%E2%80%93-air-traffic-control-tower-text-
amendment
Attachments:
1. Hearing's Officer recommendation for file no. 247-23-000470-TA
2. Staff report for file no. 247-23-000470-TA
247-23-000470-TA Page 4 of 4
DECISION, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: 247-23-000470-TA
HEARING DATE: October 2, 2023, 6:00 p.m.
HEARING LOCATION: Videoconference and
Barnes & Sawyer Rooms
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97708
APPLICANT: City of Bend
SUBJECT PROPERTIES: The subject properties comprise the Bend Municipal Airport, which
includes the following addresses and tax lots:
1. 63155 Gibson Air Rd — 1713200000200
2. 63110 Powell Butte Hwy — 1713200000201
3. 63205 Gibson Air Rd — 171317C000100
4. 63482 Powell Butte Hwy — 1713170000200
5. 22550 Nelson P1 — 1713200000202
6. 63144 Powell Butte Hwy — 1713200000300
REQUEST: Applicant requests text amendments to Deschutes County Code
("DCC" or "Code") Chapter 18.04, Title Purpose and Definitions; DCC Chapter 18.76, Airport
Development Zone; DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone; and DCC Chapter 18.120,
Exceptions. The proposed text amendments would modify the Code to add a definition of an air traffic
control tower, establish air traffic control towers as a use permitted outright in the Airport Development
Zone, and modify the height limit to allow air traffic control towers up to 115 feet in height.
HEARINGS OFFICER: Tommy A. Brooks
SUMMARY OF DECISION: The Hearings Officer finds that the Applicant's request satisfies all
procedural and substantive criteria necessary to approve the Applicant's request for amendments to the
text of the Code as modified during this proceeding. The Hearings Officer recommends the Deschutes
County Board of County Commissioners adopt by ordinance the Code langauge set forth in this
Recommendation as Exhibit A.
/ / /
/ / /
1
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.120, Exceptions
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
State Statutes
ORS 836.610
ORS 836.616
State Administrative Rules
OAR Chapter 660, Division 013
OAR Chapter 660, Division 015
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE
A. Background
The Applicant in this proceeding is the City of Bend ("City"). The City owns and operates the
Bend Municipal Airport ("Airport") on the Subject Properties.' The Subject Properties are zoned Airport
Development (AD) ("AD Zone") and are the only properties in the County with that zoning designation.
The City initially requested various text amendments to Deschutes County Code ("DCC" or "Code")
Chapter 18.04, Title Purpose and Definitions; DCC Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone; DCC
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone; and DCC Chapter 18.120, Exceptions. The City included
its requested text amendments in the Application. After the Hearing, the City submitted a revised version
of the specific text amendments it seeks, which modify only DCC Chapter 18.76, Airport Development
Zone, and DCC Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone. This Recommendation will refer to the
Applicant's final version of the text amendments, attached as Exhibit A, as the "Text Amendments."
I The Subject Properties listed above differ slightly from the list of properties included in the Application. Specifically, the
Application does not refer to Tax Lot 1719200000300. The Applicant and the Staff Report also refer to a different source for
the address of each lot, which makes the addresses appear to be different, although they likely are not. Because the Applicant
did not object to the list of properties presented in the Staff Report, and because the Staff Report list of properties appears more
inclusive, I have used the list of properties as presented in the Staff Report as the "Subject Properties."
2
Staff from the County's Community Development Department ("Staff') issued a Staff Report on
September 25, 2023, describing the Application and the applicable criteria ("Staff Report"). As described
by the City and acknowledged in the Staff Report, the purpose of the Text Amendments is as follows:
The proposed text amendments will support master planning for the Bend
Municipal Airport. The proposed amendments are intended to support the
construction of an air traffic control tower, which is now an improvement
supported by the FAA. The amendments are proposed to ensure the
establishment of a tower will support airport operations and, in a manner,
consistent with the master planning for the Bend Municipal Airport. The
amendments are further limited to the Bend Airport so that another use
could not be established through these amendments.
B. Notice and Hearing
On September 7, 2023, the County issued a Notice of Public Hearing ("Hearing Notice") for this
matter. The County mailed the Hearing Notice to all owners of property within 250 feet of the AD Zone
and the Airport boundaries. The County also published the Hearing Notice in the Bend Bulletin on
September 10, 2023.
Pursuant to the Hearing Notice, I presided over the Hearing as the Hearings Officer on October 2,
2023, at 6:00 p.m. The Hearing took place in a hybrid format, with the Applicant, Staff, and other
participants present in the Hearing Room and the Hearings Officer participating remotely.
At the beginning of the Hearing, I noted for the record that this phase of the adoption of the Text
Amendments would be quasi-judicial in nature and, therefore, I directed participants to direct comments
to the approval criteria and standards, and to raise any issues a participant wanted to preserve for appeal
if necessary. At the conclusion of the evidentiary Hearing, and at the request of the Applicant, I announced
that the record would remain open for written materials as follows: (1) any participant could submit
additional materials until October 9, 2023; (2) any participant could submit rebuttal materials until October
16, 2023 ("Rebuttal Period"); and (3) the Applicant could submit a final legal argument without new
evidence until October 23, 2023. Participants were further instructed that all submittals must be received
by the County by 4:00 p.m. on the applicable due date.
C. Nature of Decision
The Text Amendments involve changes only to the language of the Code. Due to the unique nature
of the AD Zone, the changes, if adopted, impact only one property owner — the City. This matter therefore
involves a threshold question of whether the Text Amendments are legislative, or whether they are quasi-
judicial in nature. As explained below, this is a unique situation in which the Text Amendments are both.
DCC 18.136.010 governs amendments to the Code:
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures
for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A
request by a property owner for a quasi judicial map amendment shall be
3
accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning
Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
By its express terms, this provision states that the process for a text amendment is as set forth in DCC
22.12. But DCC 22.12 broadly governs "legislative" procedures. DCC 22.04.020 defines legislative
changes as follows:
Legislative changes generally involve broad public policy decisions that
apply to other than an individual property owner. These include, without
limitation, amendments to the text of the comprehensive plans, zoning
ordinances, or the subdivision or partition ordinance and changes in zoning
maps not directed at a small number of property owners.
As Staff points out in the Staff Report (attached to this decision as Exhibit B), the Text
Amendments do not fit squarely within this definition. Further, the Code does not expressly define "text
amendment" in the context of legislative changes or in the context of a quasi-judicial land use application,
even though DCC 22.12.030 allows an individual to seek legislative changes through an application
process. The Staff Report suggests that the Text Amendments should be processed in the same manner as
a quasi-judicial plan amendment, which is governed by DCC 22.28.030.
In support of its conclusion, Staff provides a detailed analysis under Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers
v. Benton Co. Bd. of Comm., 287 Or 591, 601 P2d 769 (1979) ("Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers"). In that
case, the Oregon Supreme Court set out a multi -factor test to determine what process applies to a land use
application:
Generally, to characterize a process as adjudication presupposes that the
process is bound to result in a decision and that the decision is bound to
apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts. The latter test alone [applying
preexisting criteria to concrete facts] proves too much; there are many laws
that authorize the pursuit of one or more objectives stated in general terms
without turning the choice of action into an adjudication. Thus a further
consideration has been whether the action, even when the governing criteria
leave much room for policy discretion, is directed at a closely circumscribed
factual situation or a relatively small number of persons. The coincidence
both of this factor and of preexisting criteria of judgment has led the court
to conclude that some land use laws and similar laws imply quasijudicial
procedures for certain local government decisions. Strawberry Hill 4
Wheelers at 602-03.
As Staff correctly notes, the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers decision sets out three factors which must be
considered:
1. Is the inquiry bound to result in a decision?
2. Are there preexisting criteria that are applied to concrete facts?
4
3. Is the inquiry directed at a closely circumscribed factual situation or a relatively small
number of persons?
Although it is a close call, the Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the three factors listed
above, in this case, warrant following a quasi-judicial process for the City's Application, at least initially.
First, even if the Text Amendments are legislative changes, the Code provides an opportunity for an
individual to make an application to initiate amendments. Whether the County approves or denies that
application, a decision will result, so the inquiry is bound to result in a decision. Second, the Code contains
preexisting criteria applicable to the City's request. Although those Code provisions are largely
procedural, the quasi-judicial process can determine if those requirements are met. Third, as already
acknowledged, this matter is directed at a relatively small number of persons because the City is the only
property owner within the AD Zone and, therefore, the only property owner directly impacted by the Text
Amendments.
At the same time, the Text Amendments carry the qualities of a legislative act. The language in
DCC 22.04.020 provides that legislative changes "generally involve broad public policy decisions that
apply to other than an individual property owner" (emphasis added), and that definition does not state that
decisions applicable to only one individual property owner cannot be legislative. Indeed, that Code
provision goes on to list examples of legislative decisions, including amendments to the text of zoning
ordinances.
An important component of DCC 22.12 is DCC 22.12.050, addressing final decisions. That Code
provision states that 141 legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance." That language does not
distinguish between purely legislative changes and those legislative changes that may be processed using
a quasi-judicial process. This makes sense because the DCC is adopted by ordinance, and any changes to
the text of the Code would be an amendment to that adopted ordinance. It also makes sense because ORS
215.503(2) requires that "[al legislative acts relating to comprehensive plans, land use planning or zoning
adopted by the governing body of a county shall be by ordinance" (emphasis added).
Based on the foregoing, I find that, in this case, the adoption of text amendments proposed by an
applicant is a two-step process. In the first step of the process, the Applicant has a right under the Code to
submit and to have considered an application to amend the Code's text. This phase of the process is quasi-
judicial in nature and it is appropriate to have a hearing and to build a record following the principles of a
quasi-judicial process. As part of that process, the Hearings Officer is addressing the application only of
the County's exiting laws. The second step of the process is for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners ("County Board') to adopt an ordinance to incorporate any text amendments to the Code.
Amendments to the text of a zoning ordinance are a change in the County's law, and only the County
Board can make such a change. In other words, the Hearings Officer is without authority to amend the
County's Code. The Hearings Officer, however, can make a recommendation to the County Board based
on what develops in the quasi-judicial phase of the process. The County Board is free to accept or to reject
the Hearings Officer's recommendation.
/ / /
/ / /
5
III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Adoption and Incorporation of Findings in Staff Report
The Staff Report contains a comprehensive discussion and conclusion of the criteria applicable
to the Application. The vast majority of the conclusions in the Staff Report are not challenged in this
proceeding. I find that the Staff Report correctly lists the applicable criteria, and I hereby adopt the
discussion and conclusions in the Staff Report as my findings. The remainder of the findings in this
Recommendation are intended to supplement the Staff Report. To the extent any of the findings in this
Recommendation conflict with the discussion and conclusions in the Staff Report, the findings set forth
in this Recommendation control anything to the contrary in the Staff Report.
B. Issues Raised in Opposition to the Application
Other than the Applicant and Staff, only one individual participated in this proceeding. That
individual, Dorinne Tye, resides near the Airport and opposes the Application. The comments and
evidence submitted by participant Tye largely address health and safety concerns associated with aviation
activities in general. Very few, if any, of those comments identify a Code criterion they are intended to
address, and very few of those comments, if any, specifically address air traffic control towers. In the
findings below, I attempt to identify and address criteria that may be invoked by participant Tye's
testimony, and these findings explain why the issues raised by participant Tye do not undermine the
conclusions set forth in the Staff Report.
As an initial matter, there is some uncertainty as to whether participant Tye submitted all post -
Hearing materials in a timely manner. As explained at the conclusion of the Hearing, post -hearing
submittals were due at 4:00 p.m. on the applicable due date. For electronic submittals, the timing of a
submittal is determined based on the date and time the submittal is received by the County's servers.
Multiple submittals from participant Tye appear to have time stamps after 4:00 p.m. on the due date.
However, those submittals also appear to be re -submittals of items that were sent before the 4:00 p.m.
deadline but that may have been initially delivered to the wrong Staff email address. Because the record
is unclear whether the County's servers did not receive the submittals by the appropriate deadline, I am
allowing them to be included in the record.
The record also contains an email from participant Tye to Staff, dated October 16, 2023, stating a
desire to have "a few extra days to reply." It is not clear if that request was intended to be a request to the
Hearings Officer to modify the Rebuttal Period. Because this portion of the proceeding is being conducted
as a land use action, the hearing procedures are set forth in DCC Chapter 22.24. Within that Code chapter,
DCC 22.24.140 sets forth the specific basis for continuances and record extensions. Because participant
Tye does not identify a specific basis under the Code for seeking a record extension, the request, to the
extent it is one to the Hearings Officer, is subject to the discretion of the Hearings Officer. In light of the
fact that participant Tye was able to submit materials during the Rebuttal Period, and in the absence of
any particular information explaining what additional information would be provided that is not already
in the record, I find that it is not necessary to extend the record period and, therefore, decline that request.
6
As noted above, the majority of the comments opposing the Application are general in nature and
relate to health and safety issues, and those comments do not identify specific Code criteria on which the
Application should be analyzed. Indeed, most of the comments fail to recognize that the specific issue
before the County is a proposal to amend the text of the Code rather than an approval of a specific
development. Those comments also fail to recognize the purpose of the Text Amendments as allowing an
air traffic control tower as a permitted use, rather than amendments to Code language that alter whether
and how airplanes use the Airport — an activity that already occurs under the current Code.
One specific argument participant Tye makes is that the County should not approve any changes
to the Airport without first conducting a "cumulative impacts analysis" that considers factors like noise
and air emissions from airplanes. Like other comments, participant Tye does not identify any Code
provision that requires a cumulative impacts analysis before the County can adopt text changes to the
Code. On that basis alone, I find that this argument should be rejected. In the alternative, to the extent that
the cumulative impacts of flight operations should be considered, the record reveals that the purpose of
the Text Amendments is to allow the Applicant to better manage existing and planned air operations.
Participant Tye does not explain whether or how the Text Amendments themselves will add air operations
that are not already planned and, therefore, lead to the additional impacts as asserted. To the contrary, it
is the existing impacts from the Airport as it is currently developed that seem to be the center point of
participant Tye's arguments. As presented to the Hearings Officer, there is no basis to review the Airport's
current operations through this proceeding.
Another specific argument participant Tye makes relates to the adequacy of notice related to this
proceeding. However, that argument appears to assert that the notice of the Application and the Hearing
Notice are "unacceptable" rather than assert that they were not legally sufficient or otherwise did not occur
as required by the Code. To the contrary, participant Tye's comments acknowledge that the Hearing
Notice was given to property owners within 250 feet of the Subject Properties and 26 days prior to the
Hearing, both of which satisfy the Code's requirements.
Participant Tye's comments assert a general conflict of interest by an un-named member of the
County Board. The source of that conflict of interest appears to be that the Commissioner also serves on
the Redmond Airport Advisory Board, although that assertion, too, is not clear. I find that any arguments
relating to conflicts of interest are not well formulated and, therefore, impossible for me to address in these
findings. To the extent that a different decision maker has a conflict of interest, that issue can be raised if
and when this matter comes before that decision maker.
Participant Tye submitted several comments relating to the behavior of pilots using the Airport.
Those comments, however, do not explain what relationship individual pilot behavior has to the Text
Amendments. Without such an explanation, I find that this argument is not well formulated and, therefore,
impossible for me to address in these findings.
Participant Tye makes several comments, the theme of which is that an air traffic control tower is
merely a desire of the Applicant and not actually needed for the Airport. Those comments, however, do
not identify a Code provision that requires a text amendment to allow only those uses that are needed, or
that prohibits a text amendment to allow a use that is desirable even if it is not needed. Further, whether
an air traffic control tower is needed appears to be a question for the Airport operator and the entities that
7
regulate the Airport's operations. As proposed, the Text Amendments and Code still require the Airport
operator to comply with all federal and state laws. Thus, to the extent the need for an air traffic control
tower is relevant, that decision would be made in a different venue.
Participant Tye makes several generic assertions that the Text Amendments are not consistent with
Statewide Planning Goals ("Goal"). One specific argument participant Tye makes is that the Text
Amendments violate Goal 1, the language of which aims to "develop a citizen involvement program that
ensures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process." Participant Tye
appears to take issue with how the Airport's master plans have been developed and, as noted above, the
type of notice provided for the Hearing. I agree with the finding in the Staff Report, however, that the
process for adopting the Text Amendments complies with Goal 1 "because the County is relying on its
citizen involvement program and land use procedures ordinance to conduct public review of these
amendments." Further, even if the development of the Airport's master plans was relevant, the Applicant
provided evidence of the myriad of ways in which the public is involved in that process.
Participant Tye asserts the Text Amendments do not comply with Goal 3 (and its related statutes),
the language of which aims to "preserve and maintain agricultural lands." The specific assertion relating
to Goal 3 appears to be that the Applicant has not addressed ORS 215.243.2 That statute, however, is a
legislative policy statement, which provides guidance on the intent of other language in ORS Chapter 215.
ORS 215.243 does not appear to impose any specific requirements with respect to the County's ability to
adopt Text Amendments relating to land that is not zoned for farm use, nor does participant Tye attempt
to identify any such requirement. Participant Tye does describe potential impacts on farming resulting
from airplane operations. As the Staff Report notes, however, there do not appear to be any operating
characteristics of an air traffic control tower (the subject of the Text Amendments) that would impact
nearby farm properties.
Participant Tye asserts that the Text Amendments do not comply with Goal 5 and Goal 6, but does
not explain why. The insinuation in the testimony is that airplane operations potentially impact historic
buildings, natural resources such as wildlife, and environmental quality. However, as noted in the Staff
Report, Goal 5 is not directly applicable to the Text Amendments because they do not include any changes
to the County's Goal 5 inventories. Further, in the absence of any specific assertion that an air traffic
control tower itself would impact an inventoried Goal 5 resource, I find that this argument is not well
formulated and cannot otherwise be addressed in these findings. For a similar reason, I find that participant
Tye's arguments relating to Goal 6 are unavailing, because they do not assert that an air traffic control
tower itself will cause any harm to air or water quality.
Participant Tye asserts that the Text Amendments do not comply with Goal 12, which aims to
provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation plan. In support of the Applicant,
the Applicant provided a Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA"). The Applicant also submitted a revised TIA
based on initial comments it received from the County's transportation planning staff. The County's
Senior Transportation Planner reviewed the TIA as revised and agreed with its assumptions, methodology,
and conclusions, which demonstrate compliance with the applicable provisions of Goal 12 as implemented
'Participant Tye cites to ORS 215.241, but that appears to be a typo and the statutory language quoted in the testimony min -ors
the language in ORS 215.243.
8
through state administrative rules. Participant Tye expresses disagreement with the outcome of the TIA,
but does not identify any purported errors in the TIA. Participant Tye does question whether the number
of employees associated with an air traffic control tower is an accurate assumption in the TIA. However,
the record reveals that the number of employees assumed in the TIA — five — is based on a literature review
and engineering studies. In the absence of any counter evidence as to the appropriate number of employees
that should be used in the TIA, I find that the preponderance of the evidence in this record demonstrates
that five employees is an appropriate number to use in the TIA.
Based on the foregoing,3 I find that the adoption of the Text Amendments will be consistent with
the Goals.
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Based on the Findings above, the Applicant's proposed amendments to DCC Chapter 18.76 and
DCC Chapter 18.80 comply with the County's provisions for amending the Code. The Hearings Officer
therefore recommends that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners adopts the amendments
presented in Exhibit A by ordinance unless the Board of Commissioners determines there is a legislative
reason not to adopt the amendments.
Dated this 20th day of November 2023
Tommy A. Brooks
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Attachment:
Exhibit A — Text Amendments
Exhibit B — Staff Report
3 Participant Tye mentions other Goals, but does so without a well formulated argument for why those Goals are not met. For
example, with respect to Goal 10 relating to housing, participant Tye makes statements like "calling our farms `suburban' in
documents is damaging to our housing...." Such a statement does not present an argument supporting a conclusion that the
Text Amendments violate Goal 10, and I find that it is not possible to further address those statements in these findings.
9
Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone
18.76.015 Definitions
The following definitions apply only to Chapter 18.76.
"Air Traffic Control Tower" means a terminal facility which, through the use of air/ground
communications, visual signaling, and other devices, provides air traffic control services to airborne
aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airport and to aircraft operating on the airport movement area.
"Customary and usual aviation -related activities" include, but are not limited to, takeoffs, landings,
aircraft hangars, tiedowns, construction and maintenance of airport facilities, fixed -base operator
facilities, a residence for an airport caretaker or security officer, and other activities incidental to the
normal operation of an airport. Residential, commercial, industrial, manufacturing; and other uses,
except as provided in this rule, are not customary and usual aviation -related activities and may only be
authorized pursuant to OAR 660-013-0110.
"Fixed -base operator or FBO" means a commercial business granted the right by the airport sponsor to
operate on an airport and provide aeronautical services such as fueling, hangaring, tie -down and
parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, flight instruction, etc.
"Hangar" means an airport structure intended for the following uses:
1. Storage of active aircraft.
2. Shelter for maintenance, repair, or refurbishment of aircraft, but not the indefinite storage of
nonoperational aircraft.
3. Construction of amateur -built or kit -built aircraft
4. Storage of aircraft handling equipment, e.g., tow bar, glider tow equipment, workbenches, and
tools and materials used to service, maintain, repair or outfit aircraft: items related to ancillary
or incidental uses that do not affect the hangars' primary use.
5. Storage of materials related to an aeronautical activity, e.g., balloon and skydiving equipment,
office equipment, teaching tools, and materials related to ancillary or incidental uses that do not
affect the hangars' primary use; storage of non -aeronautical items that do not interfere with the
primary aeronautical purpose of the hangar (for example, televisions, furniture).
6. A vehicle parked at the hangar while the aircraft usually stored in that hangar is flying, subject to
local airport rules and regulations.
7. A hangar may include restrooms, pilot lounge, offices, briefing rooms, and crew quarters.
18.76.030 Uses Permitted Outright
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in all of the Airport Districts:
A. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
B. Class III road or street project.
C. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
D. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18.
E. Customary and usual aviation -related activities.
F. Hangars are subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.76.105.
G. A single air traffic control tower in the Airport Development Zone, no higher than 115 feet in
height
18.76.050 Use Limitations
The following limitations and standards shall apply to all permitted uses in the Airport Districts:
A. The height of any plant growth or structure or part of a structure such as chimneys, towers,
antennas, power lines, etc., shall not exceed 35 feet.
B. A single air traffic control tower up to 115 feet in height shall not require a height exception o
variance.
C. In approach zones beyond the clear zone areas, no meeting place designed to accommodate
more than 25 persons for public or private purposes shall be permitted.
D. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall be accommodated on the
subject premises entirely off-street.
E. No use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall require the backing of traffic onto a public or private street
or road right of way.
F. No power lines shall be located in clear zones.
G. No use shall be allowed which is likely to attract a large quantity of birds, particularly birds
which normally fly at high altitudes.
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone
18.80.022 Definitions
A. Air Traffic Control Tower. A terminal facility which, through the use of air/ground
communications visual signaling, and other devices, provides air traffic control services to
airborne aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airport and to aircraft operating on the airport
movement area.
B. Aircraft. Helicopters and airplanes, but not hot air balloons or ultralights. (Balloons are governed
by FAR Part 30, and ultralights by FAR Part 103. Ultralights are basically unregulated by the FAA.)
C. Airport. The strip of land used for taking off and landing aircraft, together with all adjacent land
used in connection with the aircraft landing or taking off from the strip of land, including but not
limited to land used for existing airport uses.
D. Airport Direct Impact Area. The area located within 5,000 feet of an airport runway, excluding
lands within the runway protection zone and approach surface. (Redmond, Bend, and Sunriver)
E. Airport Elevation. The highest point of an airport's usable runway, measured in feet above mean
sea level.
F. Airport Imaginary Surfaces (and zones). Imaginary areas in space and on the ground that are
established in relation to the airport and its runways.
For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver and Sisters airports, the imaginary surfaces are defined by the
primary surface, runway protection zone, approach surface, horizontal surface, conical surface
and transitional surface.
For the Cline Falls and Juniper airports, the imaginary areas are only defined by the primary
surface and approach surface.
G. Airport Noise Criterion. The State criterion for airport noise is an Average Day -Night Sound Level
(DNL) of 55 decibels (dBA). The Airport Noise Criterion is not designed to be a standard for
imposing liability or any other legal obligation except as specifically designated pursuant to OAR
340, Division 35.
H. Airport Noise Impact Boundary. Areas located within 1,500 feet of an airport runway or within
established noise contour boundaries exceeding 55 DNL.
I. Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS Zone). A Deschutes County zone intended to place additional
land use conditions on land impacted by the airport while retaining the existing underlying zone.
The airport imaginary surfaces, impact areas, boundaries and their use limitations comprise the
AS Zone. The AS Zone may apply to either public -use or private -use airports.
J. Airport Secondary Impact Area. The area located between 5,000 and 10,000 feet from an airport
runway. (Redmond, Bend, and Sunriver)
K. Airport Sponsor. The owner, manager, or other person or entity designated to represent the
interests of an airport.
L. Airport Uses. Those uses described in OAR 660-013-0100 and 660-013-0110.
M. Approach Surface. A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and
extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface.
For Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports:
1. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it
expands uniformly to a width of:
a. 1,250 feet for a utility runway having a visual approach;
b. 1,500 feet for other than a utility runway having a visual approach;
c. 2,000 feet for a utility runway having a non -precision instrument approach;
d. 3,500 feet for a non -precision instrument runway, other than utility, having
visibility minimums greater than three -fourths statute mile;
e. 4,000 feet for a non -precision instrument runway, other than utility, having
visibility minimums at or below three -fourths statute mile; and
f. 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways.
2. The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of
a. 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 feet outward for each foot upward for all utility
runways;
b. 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 feet outward for each foot upward for all non -
precision instrument runways, other than utility; and
c. 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 feet outward for each one foot upward, with an
additional 40,000 feet at slope of 40 feet outward for each one foot upward, for
precision instrument runways.
3. The outer width of an approach surface will be that width prescribed in DCC
18.80.022{-i=}(M)(3) for the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway
end.
For the Cline Falls and Juniper airports:
4. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it
expands uniformly to a width of 450 feet for that end of a private use airport with only
visual approaches. The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of 2,500 feet
at a slope of 20 feet outward for each one foot upward.
N. Average Day -Night Sound Level (DNL). Average day -night sound level is the FAA standard
measure for determining the cumulative exposure of individuals to noise. DNL is the equivalent
of noise levels produced by aircraft operations during a 24-hour period, with a ten -decibel
penalty applied to the level measured during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 am).
O. Conical Surface. An element of the airport imaginary surfaces that extends outward and upward
from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000
feet and to a vertical height of 350 feet above the airport elevation.
P. Department of Aviation. The Oregon Department of Aviation, formerly the Aeronautics Division
of the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Q. FAA. Federal Aviation Administration.
R. FAA's Technical Representative. As used in DCC 18.80, the federal agency providing the FAA with
expertise on wildlife and bird strike hazards as they relate to airports. This may include, but is
not limited to, the USDA -APHIS -Wildlife Services.
S. FAR. Regulation issued by the FAA.
T. FAR Part 77. Regulation, Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace," establishes standards
for determining obstructions to navigable airspace.
U. Height. The highest point of a structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth,
measured from mean sea level.
V. Horizontal Surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the
perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end
of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines
tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is:
1. 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility.
2. 10,000 feet for all other runways.
3. The radius of the arc specified for each end of a runway will have the same arithmetical
value. That value will be the highest determined for either end of the runway. When a
5,000-foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000-foot arcs,
the 5,000-foot arc shall be disregarded on the construction of the perimeter of the
horizontal surface.
W. Non -precision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure
utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation
equipment, for which a straight -in non -precision instrument approach has been approved, or
planned, and for which no precision approach facilities are planned or indicated on an FAA -
approved airport layout plan or other FAA planning document.
X. Non -Towered Airport. An airport without an existing or approved control tower on June 5, 1995.
Y. Obstruction. Any structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth that penetrates an
imaginary surface.
Z. Other than Utility Runway. A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by turbine -
driven aircraft or by propeller -driven aircraft exceeding 12,500 pounds gross weight.
AA. Precision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure
utilizing air navigation facilities that provide both horizontal and vertical guidance, such as an
Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Precision Approach Radar (PAR). It also means a runway for
which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated by an FAA -approved airport
layout plan or other FAA planning document.
BB. Primary Surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway.
For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, when a runway has a specially prepared
hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway. When a
runway has no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface
ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same
as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface
is:
1. 250 feet for utility runways with only visual approaches,
2. 500 feet for utility runways having non -precision instrument approaches,
3. 500 feet for other than utility runways having non -precision instrument approaches with
visibility minimums greater than three -fourths statute mile, and
4. 1,000 feet for non -precision instrument runways with visibility minimums at or below
three -fourths statute mile, and for precision instrument runways.
For the Cline Falls and Juniper airports, the primary surface ends at each end of a runway. The elevation
of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway
centerline. The width of the primary surface is 200 feet.
CC. Public Assembly Facility. A permanent or temporary structure or facility, place or activity where
concentrations of people gather in reasonably close quarters for purposes such as deliberation,
education, worship, shopping, employment, entertainment, recreation, sporting events, or
similar activities. Public assembly facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, religious
institutions or assemblies, conference or convention facilities, employment and shopping
centers, arenas, athletic fields, stadiums, clubhouses, museums, and similar facilities and places,
but do not include parks, golf courses or similar facilities unless used in a manner where people
are concentrated in reasonably close quarters. Public assembly facilities also do not include air
shows, structures or uses approved by the FAA in an adopted airport master plan, or places
where people congregate for short periods of time such as parking lots or bus stops.
DD. Runway. A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and takeoff of aircraft along its
length.
EE. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end used to enhance the protection of
people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the
extended runway centerline. The inner width of the RPZ is the same as the width of the primary
surface. The outer width of the RPZ is a function of the type of aircraft and specified approach
visibility minimum associated with the runway end. The RPZ extends from each end of the
primary surface for a horizontal distance of:
1. 1,000 feet for utility runways.
2. 1,700 feet for other than utility runways having non -precision instrument approaches.
3. 2,500 feet for precision instrument runways.
[NOTE: the outer width of the RPZ is specified by airport type in OAR 660, Division 13,
Exhibit 4]
FF. Significant. As it relates to bird strike hazards, "significant" means a level of increased flight
activity by birds across an approach surface or runway that is more than incidental or
occasional, considering the existing ambient level of flight activity by birds in the vicinity.
GG. Structure. Any constructed or erected object, which requires a location on the ground or is
attached to something located on the ground. Structures include but are not limited to
buildings, decks, fences, signs, towers, cranes, flagpoles, antennas, smokestacks, earth
formations and overhead transmission lines. Structures do not include paved areas.
HH.Transitional Surface. Those surfaces that extend upward and outward at 90 degree angles to the
runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of seven feet horizontally for
each foot vertically from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to the point of
intersection with the horizontal and conical surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of
the precision approach surfaces which project through and beyond the limits of the conical
surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach
surface and at a 90-degree angle to the extended runway centerline.
II. Utility Runway. A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven
aircraft of 12,500 maximum gross weight and less.
JJ. Visual Runway. A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach
procedures, where no straight -in instrument approach procedures or instrument designations
have been approved or planned, or are indicated on an FAA -approved airport layout plan or any
other FAA planning document.
KK. Water Impoundment. Includes wastewater treatment settling ponds, surface mining ponds,
detention and retention ponds, artificial lakes and ponds, and similar water features. A new
water impoundment includes an expansion of an existing water impoundment except where
such expansion was previously authorized by land use action approved prior to the effective
date of this ordinance.
18.80.028 Height Limitations
All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028.
When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the
underlying zone height limitations shall control. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070]
A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B-D), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural
growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070(1)]
B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces,
where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing
structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary
surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height.
C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport
sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow
the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as
recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver.)
D. A single air traffic control tower may be up to 115 feet in height.
18.80.044 Land Use Compatibility
Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone
shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise,
the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the
incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where
compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the
incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except
where the action results in loss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to
meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by
the Planning Director or Hearings Body. [ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-0080] An air traffic
control tower, as defined in DCC 18.80.022, is not subject to this section.
18.80 Declaration Of Anticipated Noise
As a condition of the grant of development approval pursuant to DCC 18.80, the undersigned,
hereinafter referred to as Grantor hereby covenants and agrees that it shall not, by reason of their
ownership or occupation of the following described real property, protest or bring suit or action against
the [Name of Airport] or Deschutes County, for aviation -related noise, including
property damage or personal injury from said noise connected when such activities conform to:
1. Airport activities lawfully conducted in connection with a pre-existing airport, as that term is defined
in DCC 18.80.02204(C), at the described airport; or 2. Airport activities that might be lawfully conducted
in the future at the described airport under County or State permits or exemptions.
The real property of Grantor subject to this covenant and agreement is situated in Deschutes County,
State of Oregon, and described as set forth in that certain [Statutory Warranty Deed] dated [date], as
record in [the Official Records of Deschutes County as instrument number 20xx-xxxxx] OR [Volume xx,
Page xx of the Deschutes County Board of Records];.
Grantor acknowledge that by virtue of such grant he/they have no remaining rights to complain or
protest about the protected activities described above.
This Declaration of Anticipated Noise runs with the land and is binding upon the heirs, successors and
assigns of the undersigned's interest in the described real property or any persons acquiring through he
undersigned an interest in the described real property.
Deschutes County requires the execution of this covenant and agreement by the Grantor as a pre-
requisite to Deschutes County approving a partition, subdivision, or issuing a building permit for
Grantor's development on the above described real property, which real property is located within the
noise impact boundary of the [Name of Airport]. This Declaration is executed for the
protection and benefit of the [Name of Airport] and Deschutes County's interest in
said airport and to prevent development in adjacent lands to said airport which will interfere with the
continued operation existent and development of said airport.
Dates this day of , 20
Grantor [Name]
[insert notarial certificate]
CI
CTY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ZONE CONTROL TOWER TEXT AMENDMENT
FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000470-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY: The Airport Development (AD) Zone encompasses the Bend Municipal
Airport (Airport), which includes the following addresses and tax lots:
• 63155 Gibson Air Rd - 1713200000200
• 63110 Powell Butte Hwy - 1713200000201
• 63205 Gibson Air Rd - 171317C000100
• 63482 Powell Butte Hwy - 1713170000200
• 22550 Nelson PI - 1713200000202
• 63144 Powell Butte Hwy - 1713200000300
APPLICANT: City of Bend
REQUEST: Amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapters 18.04, Title
Purpose and Definitions; Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone;
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone; and Chapter 18.120,
Exceptions. The proposed amendments will modify the DCC to add a
definition of an air traffic control tower, establish air traffic control
towers as a use permitted outright in the Airport Development Zone,
and modify the height limit to allow air traffic control towers up to 115
feet in height.
STAFF CONTACT:
RECORD:
Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
Phone: 541-388-6679
Email: Audrey.Stuart@deschutes.org
Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.d esch utes.org/cd/page/247-23-000470-ta-%E2%80%93-
air-traffic-control-tower-text-amendment
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code
Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance:
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/cd
Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS)
Chapter 18.120, Exceptions
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Oregon Revised Statutes
ORS 836.610
ORS 836.616
Oregon Administrative Rules
OAR Chapter 660, Division 013
II. BASIC FINDINGS
LOT OF RECORD: The Bend Municipal Airport consists of multiple legal lots of record through
previous land use decision issued by Deschutes County. In addition, DCC 22.04.040(B) does not
require lot of record verification for Text Amendment applications.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The AD Zone encompasses the Airport, which has a total area of 340 acres. The
AD Zone is comprised of three zoning districts —Airfield Operations District (AOD), Aviation Support
District (ASD), and Aviation -Related Industrial District (ARID). The Bend Municipal Airport is
developed with a number of aviation -related uses including taxiways, runways, a helipad, internal
roads and parking areas, and a number of structures. Powell Butte Highway, a Rural Arterial, runs
along the west boundary of the airport property and Gibson Air Road is a private road within the
airport property.
PROPOSAL: The submitted Burden of Proof includes the following background on why this Text
Amendment is necessary for the Airport:
The applicant proposes several amendments to the text of the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance that would allow construction of an air traffic control tower at the Bend Municipal
Airport. The City of Bend has established a need for an [Air Traffic Control Tower] ATCT at the
Bend Municipal Airport, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has accepted the airport
as a candidate in the Federal Contract Tower Program. The proposed amendments to the
Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance would allow the City to establish an air traffic control
tower at the Bend Airport, and to a height no greater than 115 feet. This proposed height
would provide for a cab level height of 85 feet from which air traffic controllers could direct
aircraft operations (takeoffs, landings) at the airport.
The proposed language of the Text Amendment is included as Exhibit 1 and summarized as follows:
• The Applicant proposes to add the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) definition for Airport
Traffic Control Tower.'
1 Reference FAA website: https://aspm.faa.gov/aspmhelp/index/Glossary.html
247-23-000470-TA Page 2 of 23
• The Applicant proposes to add an Air Traffic Control Tower as a new use permitted outright in
the AD Zone.
• The Applicant proposes to allow Air Traffic Control Towers up to 115 feet in height.
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice on July 5, 2023, to several public
agencies and received the following comments:
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings, August 17, 2023 Comments
have reviewed the application materials for a control tower at the Bend Airport (File 247-
23-000470-TA) and it appears that the application may not be complete where it pertains to
the Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-060) for the following reasons. The
application addresses Goal 12 (Transportation) on pages 10-11. Under the Goal 12 findings,
the burden of proof states there will be five (5) staff resulting in 10 new daily trips. It is
unclear where that number of employees came from; perhaps there are standard staffing
levels recommended or required by the FAA for aircraft control towers based on number of
operations, i.e., takeoffs and landings. For the purpose of this comment, staff utilizes the
applicant's assumption for five (5) employees.
The submitted analysis does not appear to review potentially affected County intersections.
The application materials do not appear to have a site plan and, as a result, it is unclear to
staff how the five employees may enter the Bend Airport. Potential intersections that could
be utilized by the employees are Powell Butte Hwy/Bend Airport driveway; Nelson
Road/Nelson Place; Nelson/Gibson Air Road; McGrath Road/Rotor Way. To answer the TPR
questions posed by OAR 660-012-060(1)(c)(B) and (C), the applicant should provide at least
minimal traffic analysis related to the proposal. Examples could include, but not be limited
to, current operational level of the selected intersection(s); projected operation based on the
current TSP; and number of employee trips sent to the selected intersection(s), and resulting
operations of those intersections. The applicant has addressed the trip generation portion
of analysis in projecting 10 new trips but the applicant should also provide additional analysis
related to the existing volumes and operations of the affected roadway segments and/or
intersections. Examples of needed information would be Average Daily Traffic (ADT), whether
the acknowledged 2020-2040 TSP has identified any failing intersections or road segments
or whether these intersections or road segments meet County performance standards; if
there are deficiencies, identify if there are already programmed or planned improvement to
mitigate the deficiencies, etc. It would also be helpful if the applicant could provide more
information about the hours during which the proposed tower will be staff, including any
applicable FAA recommendations, if available.
This additional analysis could be included in a brief trip generation memo given the small
number of new trips associated with the proposal.
Deschutes County Senior Transportation Planner, Tarik Rawlings, September 18, 2023 Comments
247-23-000470-TA Page 3 of 23
I have reviewed Mr. Bessman's September 6, 2023, Traffic Impact Analysis related to County
file no. 247-23-000370-TA and I agree with the assumptions, methodology, and conclusions
contained therein. As Mr. Bessman utilizes the 2040 planning horizon year (reflective of the
most recent data included in the County's forthcoming Transportation System Plan update)
this analysis appears to comply with relevant criteria. Mr. Bessman utilizes the acceptable
road segment standard of 13,900 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is incorporated into the
County's most recent 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan. The literature review and
engineering studies referenced in relation to staffing numbers and associated peak hour
trips (5 employees and 5 total p.m. peak hour trips) are adequate. Staff agrees with Mr.
Bessman's summary of Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Compliance and finds that
relevant TPR provisions appear to be satisfied through the submittal of this additional
information.
The subject Text Amendment will not absorb any road capacity as that term is commonly
accepted and, therefore, no SDC fees are associated with the subject Text Amendment at
this time.
Central Oregon Irrigation District, Spencer Stauffer
Please be advised that Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) has reviewed the application
received on July 10, 2023, for the above referenced project located tax lots 1713200000200,
1713200000201, 171317C000100, 1713170000200, 1713200000202, 1713200000300. The
applicant is requesting Amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Chapters 18.04, Title
Purpose and Definitions, Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone, Chapter 18.80, Airport
Safety Combining Zone, and Chapter 18.120, Exceptions. The proposed amendments will
modify DCC to add a definition of an air traffic control tower, establish air traffic control
towers as a use permitted outright in the Airport Development Zone, and modify the height
limit so that air traffic control towers can be up to 115 feet in height.
There are 0.84 acres COID mapped water rights appurtenant to tax lot 1713200000202.
There are 2.5 acres of mapped pond water rights appurtenant to tax lot 1713200000200.
Please note, COID's B-Lateral enters tax lot 1713200000200 in its southwest corner. The B-
lateral travels east through tax lot 1713200000202 before continuing east through tax lot
1713200000200. The B-Lateral then turns north before leaving tax lot 1713200000200 to the
east. The B-Lateral has a 30-foot right of way easement, 15-feet either side of the center of
the pipe. The B-Lateral also has a 20-foot road easement on the east side of the pipe. That
road easement is not utilized.
Listed below are COIDs initial comments to the provided application. All development
affecting irrigation facilities shall be in accordance with COID's Development Handbook
and/or as otherwise approved by the District.
Tax Map 1713200000202 has 0.84 acres of appurtenant COID irrigation water
mapped to a specific place of use. Construction of a structure, driveway, or other
impermeable surface on top of a mapped water right is not allowed.
247-23-000470-TA Page 4 of 23
•
•
•
•
•
The application will not impact COID facilities or water rights. Should the plans
change, please contact COID to determine if COID water rights or facilities will be
impacted.
Irrigation infrastructure and rights -of -way are required to be identified on all maps
and plans.
No structures or encroachment of any kind, including fence or crossing, are permitted
within COID property/easement/right of way without written permission from this
office.
Comply with Requirements of COID Developer Handbook including restriction on
drilling / blasting and excavation within and adjacent to the existing canal
embankment.
Policies, standards and requirements set forth in the COID Developer Handbook must
be complied with.
Our comments are based on the information provided, which we understand to be
preliminary nature at this time. Our comments are subject to change and additional
requirements may be made as site planning progresses and additional information becomes
available. Please provide updated documents to COID for review as they become available.
Deschutes County Building Division, Randy Scheid
The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress,
Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed
during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and
occupancies.
Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure,
occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review.
Oregon Department of Aviation, Brandon Pike
I took a look through the ATCT Siting Report prepared by the applicant, and I don't envision
ODAV having any issues with this. We would be OK with an exemption for the ATCT height,
whether through a variance or codified through a text amendment. And, yes, you're correct
that OAR 660-013-0070 requires the FAA, ODAV, and the airport sponsor to sign off on
exceptions to this rule. We would need them to go through the usual Notice of Construction
process through ODAV and FAA; that's how the FAA and ODAV would formally sign off on the
development.
The highest point on the tower will be approximately 115' above ground level (AGL), correct?
I believe that's what I saw in the Siting Report.
Regarding a definition for an ATCT, I would take a look at this webpage from the FAA:
https://aspm.faa.gov/aspmhelp/index/Glossary.html
247-23-000470-TA Page 5 of 23
Their definition is as follows: A terminal facility which, through the use of air/ground
communications, visual signaling, and other devices, provides air traffic control services to
airborne aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airport and to aircraft operating on the
movement area.
think it will be important to be very clear in your text amendment to identify that it's only
ATCTs that are allowed to exceed the height limit.
The following agencies did not respond to the notice: Bend Fire Department, Bend Municipal
Airport, Bureau of Land Management, City of Bend Growth Management Department, Deschutes
County Assessor, Deschutes County Road Department, District 11 Watermaster, and Office of the
State Fire Marshal.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners
within 250 feet of the subject property on July 5, 2023. The Applicant also complied with the posted
notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. The Applicant submitted a Land Use Action
Sign Affidavit indicating the Applicant posted notice of the land use action on August 11, 2023. No
public comments were received.
NOTICE REQUIREMENT: On September 7, 2023, the Planning Division mailed a Notice of Public
Hearing to all property owners within 250 feet of the subject property and public agencies. A Notice
of Public Hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin on Sunday, September 10, 2023. Notice of the
first evidentiary hearing was submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development
on August 26, 2023.
REVIEW PERIOD: According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed
quasi-judicial Text Amendment application is not subject to the 150-day review period.
III. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner
for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on
forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures
of DCC Title 22.
247-23-000470-TA Page 6 of 23
FINDING: The Applicant, as the property owner, has requested a quasi-judicial Text Amendment
and filed the corresponding application. The Applicant has filed the required land use application
forms for the proposal. The application will be reviewed utilizing the applicable procedures
contained in Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
DCC 22.04.020 includes the following definition:
"Quasi-judicial" zone change or plan amendment generally refers to a plan amendment or
zone change affecting a single or limited group of property owners and that involves the
application of existing policy to a specific factual setting. (The distinction between legislative
and quasi-judicial changes must ultimately be made on a case -by -case basis with reference
to case law on the subject.)
The subject application is not a request to change the zoning or Comprehensive Plan designation
of the subject property. However, as described below, the quasi-judicial process of a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment is the most applicable guidance regarding Text Amendments that are not squarely
legislative. Therefore, staff includes the definition of a quasi-judicial process above for reference
and also addresses the provisions of DCC 22.28.030, regarding final action on Comprehensive Plan
amendments. The Airport most recently went through a Text Amendment in Deschutes County file
247-20-000482-TA. The Hearings Officer decision for file 247-20-000482-TA made the following
findings regarding whether the application should be processed as a quasi-judicial Text
Amendment:
Based on the foregoing, the Hearings Officer finds that, in this case, the ultimate adoption of
the Text Amendments is a two-step process. The role of the Hearings Officer is to apply the
law, not to change it. In the first step of the process, the Applicant has a right under the DCC
to submit and to have considered an application to amend the Code's text. This phase of the
process is quasi-judicial in nature and it is appropriate to have a hearing and to build a record
following the principles of a quasi-judicial process. As part of that process, the Hearings
Officer is addressing the application of the County's exiting laws. The second step of the
process is for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners ("Board') to adopt an ordinance
to incorporate any text amendments to the Code. Amendments to the text of a zoning
ordinance are a change in the County's law, and only the Board can make such a change. In
other words, the Hearings Officer is without authority to amend the County's Code. The
Hearings Officer, however, can make a recommendation to the Board based on what
develops in the quasi-judicial phase of the process.
The Oregon Supreme Court case Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers provides guidance on how to distinguish
between a legislative and quasi-judicial process, and outlines a three-part test that continues to be
applied throughout case law. The Court of Appeals applied and expanded on the Strawberry Hill 4
Wheelers decision in Hood River Valley v. Board of Cty. Commissioners, 193 Or App 485, 495, 91 P3d
748 (2004):
Given those concerns, "[t]he fact that a policymaking process is circumscribed by * * *
procedural requirements [such as public hearings] does not alone turn it into an
247-23-000470-TA Page 7 of 23
adjudication." Id. at 604. Rather, at least three other considerations generally bear on the
determination of whether governmental action represented an "exercise of * * *quasi-
judicial functions." ORS 34.040(1). First, does "the process, once begun, [call] for reaching a
decision," with that decision being confined by preexisting criteria rather than a wide
discretionary choice of action or inaction? Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers, 287 Or at 604. Second,
to what extent is the decision -maker "bound to apply preexisting criteria to concrete facts"?
Id. at 602-03. Third, to what extent is the decision "directed at a closely circumscribed factual
situation or a relatively small number of persons"? Id. at 603.
Those three general criteria do not, however, describe a bright -line test. As we noted in Estate
of Gold v. City of Portland, 87 Or App 45, 51, 740 P2d 812, rev den, 304 Or 405 (1987), Strawberry
Hill4 Wheelers "contemplates a balancing of the various factors which militate for or against
a quasi-judicial characterization and does not create [an] 'all or nothing' test[.]" (Citation
omitted.) In particular, we noted that the criteria are applied in light of the reasons for their
existence -viz., "the assurance of correct factual decisions" and "the assurance of 'fair
attention to individuals particularly affected." Estate of Gold, 87 Or App at 51 (quoting
Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers, 287 Or at 604).
As noted above, the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test requires a case -specific analysis of all three
factors in combination. Individuals most affected by the proposed Text Amendment include the
Airport Sponsor and neighboring property owners, all of whom were mailed notice pursuant to DCC
22.24.030.
Staff addresses each component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test below:
Results in a decision
The applicant has submitted an application for a Text Amendment, in order to construct an Air
Traffic Control Tower on the subject property. The request will result in either an approval or a
denial, and a decision will be issued by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) pursuant to
DCC Title 22. As opposed to a policy change initiated by staff or decision -makers, which has a wide
discretionary choice between action and inaction, the subject request was submitted as a land use
application by the property owner and the County must take final action on it. Staff finds the subject
amendment clearly meets this component of the Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers test and may be
considered a quasi-judicial process.
Apply existing criteria
The subject request is being reviewed based on criteria in DCC Chapter 18.136, Amendments, and
applicable state statutes. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 836.616, Rules for airport uses and
activities, provides a list of the uses that may be permitted within an airport under a local
jurisdiction's land use code. The application is being reviewed to confirm compliance with the DCC
along with applicable OARs and ORSs, and staff therefore finds existing criteria are being applied to
the subject application. Consequently, the application meets this component of the Strawberry Hill
4 Wheelers test for a quasi-judicial process.
247-23-000470-TA Page 8 of 23
Small number of persons
The Airport Development Zone encompasses the Airport, and no other properties. The subject
property is owned and operated by the City of Bend, who manages leases and oversees uses within
the Bend Municipal Airport. While staff notes the Bend Municipal Airport is utilized by members of
the public and various businesses, a new use can only be established on the property if the City of
Bend initiates or authorizes an application. The subject request will impact the development
potential of the Airport property and no other properties. Therefore, staff finds the subject request
complies with this component of the Strawberry Hill Wheelers test and may be categorized as quasi-
judicial.
When the factors above are considered in combination, staff finds they indicate the subject Text
Amendment is a quasi-judicial process. As noted in Hood River Valley v. Board of Cty. Commissioners,
the differentiation between a legislative and quasi-judicial process is important in order to ensure
all affected parties are given a fair process. In this case the proposal will impact one property owner,
the applicant, and processing the request through a quasi-judicial process will provide for a public
hearing before a Hearings Officer and final action by the Board. For these reasons, staff finds the
request meets the three-part test outlined in Strawberry Hill 4 Wheelers as well as the intent of a
quasi-judicial process.
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.12, Legislative Procedures
Section 22.12.010, Hearing Required
No legislative change shall be adopted without review by the Planning Commission and a
public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. Public hearings before the
Planning Commission shall be set at the discretion of the Planning Director, unless
otherwise required by state law.
FINDING: As described above, staff finds the subject request is a quasi-judicial Text Amendment.
However, the procedural steps will be similar to those outlined in the Hearing's Officer decision for
file 247-20-000482-TA, which finds amendments to allowed airport uses carry the qualities of a
legislative act. The subject amendments will be adopted through an ordinance, consistent with the
process for a legislative amendment. The Planning Director has exercised their discretion not to set
a hearing before the Planning Commission.
Section 22.12.020, Notice
A. Published Notice.
1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing.
2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a
247-23-000470-TA Page 9 of 23
statement describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under
consideration.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and
where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
C. Individual Notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC
22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as
required by ORS 215.503.
D. Media Notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: Notice of the proposed Text Amendment was published in the Bend Bulletin. As noted
above, the applicant complied with the posted notice requirement and staff mailed notice to
property owners within 250 feet of the Airport boundary. Notice was provided to the County public
information official for wider media distribution.
Section 22.12.030, Initiation Of Legislative Changes
A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of
required fees as well as by the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Commission.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted the required fees and requested a Text Amendment. Staff
finds the applicant is granted permission under this criterion to initiate a legislative change and has
submitted the necessary fee and materials.
Section 22.12.040, Hearings Body
A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this
order:
1. The Planning Commission.
2. The Board of County Commissioners.
FINDING: As described above, the subject application meets the definition of a quasi-judicial
application. For this reason, this application was referred to a Hearings Officer rather than the
Planning Commission for a recommendation. The adoption of the proposed text amendments will
follow a legislative process because it must be approved by the Board. For the purpose of this
criterion, staff notes the application has properties of both a quasi-judicial and legislative
amendment.
B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of
Commissioners.
FINDING: The subject application was not initiated by the Board. Staff finds this criterion does not
apply.
247-23-000470-TA Page 10 of 23
Section 22.12.050, Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance.
FINDING: Staff finds this criterion requires action by the Board to effect any legislative changes to
Deschutes County Code. If the proposed Text Amendment is approved, it will become effective
through the Board adoption of an ordinance.
Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
Section 22.28.030, Decision On Plan Amendments And Zone Changes
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when
acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-
judicial zone changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-
judicial plan amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan
amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the
Board of County Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review
initiated by the Board, adopt the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further
testimony will be taken by the Board.
FINDING: As detailed above, staff finds the proposal should be viewed as a quasi-judicial plan
amendment. For this reason, staff finds these criteria apply. This application is being referred to a
Hearings Officer for a recommendation. If an appeal is not filed and the Board does not initiate
review, the Board shall adopt the Hearings Officer's recommendation as the decision of the county.
C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or
concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo
before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal,
regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission.
Such hearing before the Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as
an appeal to the Board under DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The subject Text Amendment does not require a goal exception and does not concern
lands designated for forest or agricultural use. For this reason, a de novo hearing before the Board
is not required.
D. Notwithstanding DCC 22.28.030(C), when a plan amendment subject to a DCC
22.28.030(C) hearing before the Board of County Commissioners has been
consolidated for hearing before the hearings Officer with a zone change or other
permit application not requiring a hearing before the board under DCC 22.28.030(C),
any party wishing to obtain review of the Hearings Officer's decision on any of those
247-23-000470-TA Page 11 of 23
other applications shall file an appeal. The plan amendment shall be heard by the
Board consolidated with the appeal of those other applications.
FINDING: No other application is being consolidated with the subject Text Amendment. Staff finds
this criterion does not apply.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Transportation System Plan
Section 3.4, Rural Economy
Goal 1. Maintain a stable and sustainable rural economy, compatible with rural lifestyles
and a healthy environment.
Policy 3.4.6 Support and participate in master planning for airports in Deschutes
County
FINDING: The County's Comprehensive Plan includes a number of guiding policies such as the rural
economy goal cited above. In addition, Appendix C - Transportation System Plan includes goals
specific to airport planning. Staff finds the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies are implemented
through Deschutes County Code, and the Comprehensive Plan goals themselves are not specific
approval criteria. However, to the extent the Hearings Officer finds this policy is an applicable
approval criterion, staff includes the applicant's response below as alternate findings:
The proposed text amendments will support master planning for the Bend Municipal Airport.
The proposed amendments are intended to support the construction of an air traffic control
tower, which is now an improvement supported by the FAA. The amendments are proposed
to ensure the establishment of a tower will support airport operations and, in a manner,
consistent with the master planning for the Bend Municipal Airport. The amendments are
further limited to the Bend Airport so that another use could not be established through
these amendments.
OREGON REVISED STATUTES
Chapter 836 - Airports and Landing Fields
836.610, Local government land use plans and regulations to accommodate airport
zones and uses; funding; rules.
1) Local governments shall amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations
consistent with the rules for airports adopted by the Land Conservation and
247-23-000470-TA Page 12 of 23
Development Commission under ORS 836.616 and 836.619. Airports subject to the
rules shall include:
(a) Publicly owned airports registered, licensed or otherwise recognized by the
Department of Transportation on or before December 31, 1994, that in 1994
were the base for three or more aircraft; and
(b) Privately owned public -use airports specifically identified in administrative
rules of the Oregon Department of Aviation thot:
(A) Provide important links in air traffic in this state;
(8) Provide essential safety or emergency services; or
(C) Are of economic importance to the county where the airport is
located.
(2)(a) Local governments shall amend their comprehensive plan and land use regulations
as required under subsection (1) of this section not later thon the first periodic
review, as described in ORS 197.628 to 197.651, conducted after the date of the
adoption of a list of airports by the Oregon Department of Aviation under subsection
(3) of this section.
(b) A state agency or other person may provide funding to a local government to
accomplish the planning requirements of this section earlier than otherwise
required under this subsection.
(3) The Oregon Department of Aviation by rule shall adopt a list of airports described
in subsection (1) of this section. The rules shall be reviewed and updated periodically
to add or remove airports from the list. An airport may be removed from the list
only upon request of the airport owner or upon closure of the airport for a period of
more than three years. 11995 c.285 §4; 1997 c.859 52)
FINDING: The AD Zone encompasses the, which is a publically-owned airport. In addition, the
Airport was registered prior to December 31, 1994, and staff therefore finds it is subject to this
section. The applicant proposes to amend the land use regulations for this airport consistent with
ORS 836.616 and ORS 836.619.
836.616, Rules for airport uses and activities.
(1) Following consultation with the Oregon Department of Aviation, the Land
Conservation and Development Commission shall adopt rules for uses and activities
allowed within the boundaries of airports identified in ORS 836.610 (Local
government land use plans and regulations to accommodate airport zones and uses)
(1) and airports described in ORS 836.608 (Airport operation as matter of state
concern) (2).
(2) Within airport boundaries established pursuant to commission rules, local
government land use regulations shall authorize the following uses and activities:
(a) Customary and usual aviation -related activities including but not limited to
takeoffs, landings, aircraft hangars, tie -downs, construction and
maintenance of airport facilities, fixed -base operator facilities and other
activities incidental to the normal operation of an airport;
247-23-000470-TA Page 13 of 23
FINDING: DCC 18.76.030(E) currently permits customary and usual aviation -related activities in the
AD Zone. The applicant proposes to add a new use category for air traffic control towers, which staff
finds are a type of customary and usual aviation -related activity.
(3) All land uses and activities permitted within airport boundaries, other than the uses
and activities established under subsection (2) of this section, shall comply with
applicable land use laws and regulations. A local government may authorize
commercial, industrial and other uses in addition to those listed in subsection (2) of
this section within an airport boundary where such uses are consistent with
applicable provisions of the acknowledged comprehensive plan, statewide land use
planning goals and commission rules and where the uses do not create a safety
hazard or limit approved airport uses.
(4) The provisions of this section do not apply to airports with an existing or approved
control tower on June 5, 1995. 11997 c.859 §5 (enacted in lieu of 836.615)]
FINDING: The applicant proposes a new use category consisting of an air traffic control tower. As
described above, staff finds this is a type of customary and usual aviation -related activity and is
therefore a use listed in subsection (2). No additional uses are proposed within the AD Zone and
staff finds subsection (3) does not apply. Furthermore, the Airport did not contain an existing or
approved control tower on June 5, 1995. Therefore, staff finds subsection (4) does not apply.
836.619, State compatibility and safety standards for land uses near airports; rules.
Following consultation with the Oregon Department of Aviation, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission shall adopt rules establishing compatibility and safety
standards for uses of land near airports identified in ORS 836.610 (Local government land
use plans and regulations to accommodate airport zones and uses) (1). (1997 c.859 §8
(enacted in lieu of 836.620)]
FINDING: Applicable Oregon Administrative Rules are addressed below.
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660, LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Division 13 - Airport Planning
OAR 660-013-0020, Definitions
For purposes of this division, the definitions in ORS Chapter 197 apply unless the context
requires otherwise. In addition, the following definitions apply:
(4) "Non Towered Airport" means an airport without an existing or approved control
tower on June 5, 1995.
247-23-000470-TA Page 14 of 23
FINDING: Staff includes this definition for reference, to demonstrate the Airport meets the
definition of a non towered airport. The applicant proposes the subject Text Amendment for the
purpose of establishing a control tower in the AD Zone in the future. The Airport did not contain an
existing or approved control tower on June 5, 1995, and therefore will continue to meet the
definition of a non towered airport even if a control tower is established in the future.
OAR 660-013-0303, Preparation and Coordination of Aviation Plans
(2) A city or county with planning authority for one or more airports, or areas within
safety zones or compatibility zones described in this division, shall adopt
comprehensive plan and land use regulations for airports consistent with the
requirements of this division and ORS 836.600 through 836.630. Local comprehensive
plan and land use regulation requirements shall be coordinated with acknowledged
transportation system plans for the city, county, and Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) required by OAR 660, division 12. Local comprehensive plan and
land use regulation requirements shall be consistent with adopted elements of the
state ASP and shall be coordinated with affected state and federal agencies, local
governments, airport sponsors, and special districts. If a state ASP has not yet been
adopted, the city or county shall coordinate the preparation of the local
comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements with ODA. Local
comprehensive plan and land use regulation requirements shall encourage and
support the continued operation and vitality of airports consistent with the
requirements of ORS 836.600 through 836.630.
FINDING: The submitted Burden of Proof provides the following statement.
The proposal is consistent with this rule because it proposes amendments to the text of the
County's land use regulations that apply to the Bend Airport. The proposed text
amendments would have the effect of allowing the development of one (1) air traffic control
tower at the Bend Municipal Airport. The siting of a tower consistent with these amendments
would support the continued operation and vitality of the Bend Municipal Airport by
ensuring air traffic to and from the Airport was safely controlled and directed.
Staff concurs with this description and finds the proposed amendment to the DCC will encourage
and support the continued operation of the Airport.
OAR 660-013-0050, Implementation of Local Airport Planning
A local government with planning responsibility for one or more airports or areas within
safety zones or compatibility zones described in this division or subject to requirements
identified in ORS 836.608 shall adopt land use regulations to carry out the requirements of
this division, or applicable requirements of ORS 836.608, consistent with the applicable
elements of the adopted state ASP and applicable statewide planning requirements.
247-23-000470-TA Page 15 of 23
FINDING: This administrative rule imposes a mandatory requirement on the County to adopt land
use regulations consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted state Aviation System Plan
("ASP") and applicable statewide planning requirements. The applicant proposes to amend the
Airport Safety Combining Zone, which implements this administrative rule. Other applicable
statewide planning requirements are addressed below, and staff finds this criterion will be met.
OAR 660-013-0070, Local Government Safety Zones for Imaginary Surfaces
(1)
A local government shall adopt an Airport Safety Overlay Zone to promote aviation
safety by prohibiting structures, trees, and other objects of natural growth from
penetrating airport imaginary surfaces.
(a) The overlay zone for public use airports shall be based on Exhibit 1
incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The overlay zone for airports described in ORS 836.608(2) shall be based on
Exhibit 2 incorporated herein by reference.
(c) The overlay zone for heliports shall be based on Exhibit 3 incorporated herein
by reference.
(2) For areas in the safety overlay zone, but outside the approach and transition
surface, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surface
such that existing structures and planned development exceed the height
requirements of this rule, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet
in height. A local government may adopt other height exceptions or approve a height
variance when supported by the airport sponsor, the Oregon Department of
Aviation, and the FAA.
FINDING: The County has adopted an Airport Safety Combining Zone, and staff therefore finds
subsection(1), is met. Subsection (2), above, allows a jurisdiction to adopt height exceptions to the
imaginary surfaces of the Airport Safety Overlay Zone when supported by the airport sponsor, the
Oregon Department of Aviation, and the FAA. The applicant in this case is the airport sponsor, and
their request for a Text Amendment therefore indicates support for the height exception.
Comments submitted August 14, 2023 from Oregon Department of Aviation indicate general
support for the proposal, and the application materials document ongoing coordination between
the airport sponsor and the FAA regarding the proposed tower.
OAR 660-013-0100, Airport Uses at Non -Towered Airports
Local government shall adopt land use regulations for areas within the airport boundary
of non -towered airports identified in ORS 836.610(1) that authorize the following uses and
activities:
(1) Customary and usual aviation -related activities including but not limited to
takeoffs, landings, aircraft hangars, tiedowns, construction and maintenance of
airport facilities, fixed -base operator facilities, a residence for an airport caretaker
or security officer, and other activities incidental to the normal operation of an
airport. Residential, commercial, industrial, manufacturing, and other uses, except
247-23-000470-TA Page 16 of 23
as provided in this rule, are not customary and usual aviation -related activities and
may only be authorized pursuant to OAR 660-013-0110.
FINDING: The applicant proposes to add an air traffic control tower as a use permitted outright in
the AD Zone. Staff finds an air traffic control tower is an airport facility and is, therefore, a customary
and aviation -related activity.
DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
OAR 660-012-0060 Plan and Land use Regulation Amendments
(1)
If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a
land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing
or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place
measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed
under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this
subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the
planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected
conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area
of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an
enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic
generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand
management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the
significant effect of the amendment.
(A) Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(B) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility such that it would not meet the performance standards
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility that is otherwise projected to not meet the performance
standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
FINDING: This above language is applicable to the proposal because it involves an amendment to
a land use regulation, specifically the provisions of the AD Zone. The proposed amendment would
allow an air traffic control tower as a use permitted outright in the zone, with a height of up to 115
feet. While the Applicant is not proposing any land use development of the subject property at this
time, the application materials indicate the intent is future construction of one air traffic control
247-23-000470-TA Page 17 of 23
tower at the Airport. Therefore, for the purpose of this criterion staff evaluates whether the
applicant has demonstrated this future construction of an air traffic control tower will comply with
the Transportation Planning Rule.
In the application materials submitted on June 9, 2023, the applicant estimates the air traffic control
tower will generate no more than 10 additional vehicle trips per day, and therefore did not require
additional analysis for transportation impacts. The County Transportation Planner then requested
additional information, particularly regarding impacts to County intersections near the subject
property. The Applicant then submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) dated September 6, 2023,
prepared by Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting LLC, which provided the following analysis of
impacts to surrounding roadways and intersections:
The proposed comparative assessment of scenarios with and without the text amendment
allowing an ATCT shows that there is very little change in the trip generation potential of the
site. For purposes of a "reasonably likely" scenario, the assessment considered both volume
scenarios with western and eastern access.
Based on the review presented herein, the proposed amendment to allow an Air Traffic
Control Center within the adjacent Airport Development Zone would comply with the intent
of the zoning, as it would allow implementation of the adopted Bend Municipal Airport
Master Plan. This would only create minor impacts in area traffic volumes, as with this limited
trip generation potential (5 additional weekday p.m. peak hour trips) this amendment would
not:
• Change the functional classification of existing or planned transportation facilities;
• Change standards implementing a functional classification system, or
• Result in types of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility.
The revised TIA was reviewed by the County Senior Transportation Planner, who agreed with the
report's conclusions. Staff finds that the proposed Text Amendment will be consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and performance standards of the County's transportation facilities in
the area. The proposed air traffic control tower will not change the functional classification of any
existing or planned transportation facility or change the standards implementing a functional
classification system. Regarding the memo dated September 6, 2023, the County Transportation
Planner provided the following comments in an email dated September 18, 2023:
I have reviewed Mr. Bessman's September 6, 2023, Traffic Impact Analysis related to County
file no. 247-23-000370-TA and I agree with the assumptions, methodology, and conclusions
contained therein. As Mr. Bessman utilizes the 2040 planning horizon year (reflective of the
most recent data included in the County's forthcoming Transportation System Plan update)
this analysis appears to comply with relevant criteria. Mr. Bessman utilizes the acceptable
road segment standard of 13,900 Average Daily Trips (ADT) which is incorporated into the
County's most recent 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan. The literature review and
engineering studies referenced in relation to staffing numbers and associated peak hour
trips (5 employees and 5 total p.m. peak hour trips) are adequate. Staff agrees with Mr.
247-23-000470-TA Page 18 of 23
Bessman's summary of Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Compliance and finds that
relevant TPR provisions appear to be satisfied through the submittal of this additional
information.
Based on the County Senior Transportation Planner's comments and the traffic memo prepared by
Transight Consulting LLC, staff finds compliance with the Transportation Planning Rule has been
effectively demonstrated.
DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES
OAR 660-015, Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
FINDING: The Statewide Planning Goals and the Applicant's findings are quoted below:
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program thot ensures
the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
FINDING: The proposed amendments will be consistent with Goal 1 because the County is
relying on its citizen involvement program and land use procedures ordinance to conduct
public review of these amendments. The procedures require a public hearing before a
County hearings officer and subsequent review by the Board of County Commissioners
before adoption. The applicant has proposed these findings for the County to rely and/or
build upon to explain their final decisions on these amendments to the public.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning. PART 1 - PLANNING: To establish a land use planning
process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of
land and to assure on adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
FINDING: The proposed amendments will meet this goal because the applicant has
developed an adequate factual base upon which the County may base its decision. The
applicant has provided documentation with these findings that demonstrate the necessity
for the air traffic control tower, including a decision by the FAA to include the Bend Municipal
Airport in the Federal Contract Tower Program. The applicant has provided the potential
locations for the air traffic control tower that were included in the 2021 Bend Airport Master
Plan, also approved by the FAA and in the 2020 Tower Siting Report.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands. To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
FINDING: This goal is applicable because the areas surrounding the Bend Municipal Airport
includes areas designated for Agriculture on the County's Comprehensive Plan and zoned
EFUTRB, Exclusive Farm Use-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone. The proposed text
amendments would allow the City to establish an air traffic control tower at the Bend
Municipal Airport. The tower itself does not have any operating characteristics that will either
force a significant change or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming practices
247-23-000470-TA Page 19 of 23
occurring on EFU lands around the airport. The operation of the tower will not generate
levels of noise or vibrations that would results in changes to farm practices and will not
generate levels of traffic to and from the airport that would interfere with movement of farm
equipment. The operation of the tower will involve a beacon that will rotate white and green
to inform pilots of its location. Finally, the operation of the air traffic control tower will not
require the use of irrigation water and in amounts that would impact irrigating pasture
grasses on properties zoned EFU.
Goal 4: Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and
to protect the state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest
practices that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as
the leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water,
and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and
agriculture.
FINDING: Goal 4 is not applicable to review of the proposed text amendments because none
of the surrounding properties are designated Forest Lands under the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 5: To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces.
FINDING: Goal 5 is not applicable to review of the proposed text amendments because they
do not include any changes to the County's Goal 5 inventories in its Comprehensive Plan,
and do not also propose a use that would impact a Goal 5 resource.
STAFF NOTE: The County's Goal 5 protections are partially implemented through DCC Chapter 18.84,
the Landscape Management Combining Zone. This overlay zone protects scenic resources through
design limitations and additional protections for designated roadways, rivers, and streams. The
subject property is not located within the Landscape Management Combining Zone and is not
subject to these provisions.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources. To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water and land resources of the state.
FINDING: The proposal is consistent with Goal 6 because the operation of the air traffic
control tower will help improve air quality around the airport. The establishment of the air
traffic control tower and staff for its operation will help manage aircraft operations, aircraft
landing and taking off, so that fewer aircraft are circling around the airport waiting to land.
Goal 7: Natural Hazards. To protect people and property from natural hazards.
FINDING: Goal 7 is not applicable to review of the proposed text amendments because there
are no natural hazards mapped adjacent to the Bend Airport.
247-23-000470-TA Page 20 of 23
Goal 8: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and,
where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
FINDING: The applicant finds that elements of Goal 8 are applicable to review of the
proposed text amendments and other elements of Goal 8 are not. This finding begins by
addressing the applicability of Goal 8 to the potential increase in recreational aviation activity
that may result from having an ATCT at the Bend Municipal Airport. The purpose of the ATCT
is to support a crew of air traffic controllers who would direct takeoffs and landings at the
Bend Airport. The improved management of air traffic at the airport may provide for more
reliable and safer aircraft operations, including those for tourists and visitors recreating in
Central Oregon. The applicant finds that this element of the proposal would satisfy Goal 8 by
providing for safter air traffic for citizens of the state recreating in Deschutes County.
The applicant finds that the elements of Goal 8 regarding destination resort siting and siting
of necessary recreational facilities are not applicable to review of the proposed text
amendments because they do not impact any Goal 8 destination resorts have been
established in Deschutes County and do not propose any changes to the land use regulations
under DCC Chapter 18.113. In addition, Goal 8 is not applicable because the proposed text
amendment does not propose and will not impact recreational facilities in Deschutes County.
The proposed text amendments will not influence existing or planned public parks or trails.
Goal 9: Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the
state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of
Oregon's citizens.
FINDING: The applicant finds that this goal is applicable because one of the outcomes of
establishing an air traffic control tower at the Bend Municipal Airport will be safer aircraft
operations, including those related to business traffic and related to airport -based
businesses at the airport. The establishment of the air traffic control tower will support
aviation -related economic development by improving safety and operations (takeoffs,
landings) efficiency at the airport.
Goal 10: Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
FINDING: Goal 10 is not applicable to review of the proposed text amendments because the
amendments do not propose changes to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance that would
provide needed housing.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
FINDING: Goal 11 is not applicable to review of the proposed text amendments because
they do not propose any changes to the County Toning Ordinance that would affect the
provision of water, wastewater collection, or transportation facilities in Deschutes County.
The amendments focus on changes that would allow the siting of one (1) air traffic control
247-23-000470-TA Page 21 of 23
tower at the Bend Municipal Airport. There are no amendments proposed that would involve
any public facilities being extended to serve rural development. These proposed text
amendments would also not have the effect of changing the existing water, wastewater, and
transportation facilities that serve the Bend Municipal Airport.
Goal 12: Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
FINDING: The proposed amendments are consistent with Goal i.2 because they will allow
development of an air traffic control tower at the Bend Municipal Airport. The establishment
of an air traffic control tower through these amendments will be consistent with Goal 12 by
ensuring safer airport flight operations that are directed through the airport staff stationed
at the air traffic control tower.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation. To conserve energy.
FINDING: Goal 13 is not applicable to these proposed text amendments because they do
not include any changes that would affect energy conservation. These amendments do not
propose any renewable energy facilities at the Bend Airport.
Goal 14: Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside
urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable
communities.
FINDING: Goal 14 is not applicable to review of the proposed text amendments because
they do not affect an adopted urban growth boundary. Goal 14 is also not applicable because
the proposed text amendments would not have the effect of allowing urban land uses on
rural land.
Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway; Goal 16: Estuarine Resources; Goal 17: Coastal
Shorelands; Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19: Ocean Resources.
FINDING: These goals are not applicable to review of the proposed text amendments
because the Bend Airport is not adjacent to the Willamette River and not adjacent to the
coast or the Pacific Ocean.
Staff generally accepts the Applicant's responses and finds compliance with the applicable
Statewide Planning Goals has been effectively demonstrated.
IV. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Staff requests the Hearings Officer determine if the Applicant has met the burden of proof
necessary to justify the proposed Text Amendment through effectively demonstrating
247-23-000470-TA Page 22 of 23
compliance with the applicable criteria of DCC Title 18 (the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance), the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, and applicable sections of OAR and
ORS.
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION
Written by: Audrey Stuart, Associate Planner
e1A;;;0
Reviewed by: Will Groves, Planning Manager
Attachments: 1) Proposed Text Amendments
247-23-000470-TA Page 23 of 23
Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone
18.76.015 Definitions
The following definitions apply only to Chapter 18.76.
"Customary and usual aviation -related activities" include, but are not limited to, takeoffs, landings,
aircraft hangars, tiedowns, construction and maintenance of airport facilities, fixed -base operator
facilities, a residence for an airport caretaker or security officer, and other activities incidental to the
normal operation of an airport. Residential, commercial, industrial, manufacturing; and other uses,
except as provided in this rule, are not customary and usual aviation -related activities and may only be
authorized pursuant to OAR 660-013-0110.
"Fixed -base operator or FBO" means a commercial business granted the right by the airport sponsor to
operate on an airport and provide aeronautical services such as fueling, hangaring, tie -down and
parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, flight instruction, etc.
"Hangar" means an airport structure intended for the following uses:
1. Storage of active aircraft.
2. Shelter for maintenance, repair, or refurbishment of aircraft, but not the indefinite storage of
nonoperational aircraft.
3. Construction of amateur -built or kit -built aircraft
4. Storage of aircraft handling equipment, e.g., tow bar, glider tow equipment, workbenches, and
tools and materials used to service, maintain, repair or outfit aircraft: items related to ancillary
or incidental uses that do not affect the hangars' primary use.
5. Storage of materials related to an aeronautical activity, e.g., balloon and skydiving equipment,
office equipment, teaching tools, and materials related to ancillary or incidental uses that do not
affect the hangars' primary use; storage of non -aeronautical items that do not interfere with the
primary aeronautical purpose of the hangar (for example, televisions, furniture).
6. A vehicle parked at the hangar while the aircraft usually stored in that hangar is flying, subject to
local airport rules and regulations.
7. A hangar may include restrooms, pilot lounge, offices, briefing rooms, and crew quarters.
"Air Traffic Control Tower" means a terminal facility which, through the use of air/ground
communications, visual signaling, and other devices, provides air traffic control services to airborne
aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airport and to aircraft operating on the airport movement area.
18.76.030 Uses Permitted Outright
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright in all of the Airport Districts:
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
A. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
B. Class III road or street project.
C. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
D. Farm use as defined in DCC Title 18.
E. Customary and usual aviation -related activities.
F. Hangars are subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.76.105.
G. An air traffic control tower, no higher than 115 feet in height.
18.76.050 Use Limitations
The following limitations and standards shall apply to all permitted uses in the Airport Districts:
A. The height of any plant growth or structure or part of a structure such as chimneys, towers,
antennas, power lines, etc., shall not exceed 35 feet.
1. DCC 18.76.050(A) does not apply to the siting of an air traffic control tower. An air traffic
control tower up to 115 feet shall not require a height exception or variance.
B. In approach zones beyond the clear zone areas, no meeting place designed to accommodate
more than 25 persons for public or private purposes shall be permitted.
C. All parking demand created by any use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall be accommodated on the
subject premises entirely off-street.
D. No use permitted by DCC 18.76 shall require the backing of traffic onto a public or private street
or road right of way.
E. No power lines shall be located in clear zones.
F. No use shall be allowed which is likely to attract a large quantity of birds, particularly birds
which normally fly at high altitudes.
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
Chapter 18.80, Airport Safety Combining Zone
18.80.022 Definitions
A. Air Traffic Control Tower. A terminal facility which, through the use of air/ground
communications, visual signaling, and other devices, provides air traffic control services to
airborne aircraft operating in the vicinity of an airport and to aircraft operating on the airport
movement area.
B. Aircraft. Helicopters and airplanes, but not hot air balloons or ultralights. (Balloons are governed
by FAR Part 30, and ultralights by FAR Part 103. Ultralights are basically unregulated by the FAA.)
C. Airport. The strip of land used for taking off and landing aircraft, together with all adjacent land
used in connection with the aircraft landing or taking off from the strip of land, including but not
limited to land used for existing airport uses.
D. Airport Direct Impact Area. The area located within 5,000 feet of an airport runway, excluding
lands within the runway protection zone and approach surface. (Redmond, Bend, and Sunriver)
E. Airport Elevation. The highest point of an airport's usable runway, measured in feet above mean
sea level.
F. Airport Imaginary Surfaces (and zones). Imaginary areas in space and on the ground that are
established in relation to the airport and its runways.
For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver and Sisters airports, the imaginary surfaces are defined by the
primary surface, runway protection zone, approach surface, horizontal surface, conical surface
and transitional surface.
For the Cline Falls and Juniper airports, the imaginary areas are only defined by the primary
surface and approach surface.
G. Airport Noise Criterion. The State criterion for airport noise is an Average Day -Night Sound Level
(DNL) of 55 decibels (dBA). The Airport Noise Criterion is not designed to be a standard for
imposing liability or any other legal obligation except as specifically designated pursuant to OAR
340, Division 35.
H. Airport Noise Impact Boundary. Areas located within 1,500 feet of an airport runway or within
established noise contour boundaries exceeding 55 DNL.
Airport Safety Combining Zone (AS Zone). A Deschutes County zone intended to place additional
land use conditions on land impacted by the airport while retaining the existing underlying zone.
The airport imaginary surfaces, impact areas, boundaries and their use limitations comprise the
AS Zone. The AS Zone may apply to either public -use or private -use airports.
J. Airport Secondary Impact Area. The area located between 5,000 and 10,000 feet from an airport
runway. (Redmond, Bend, and Sunriver)
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
K. Airport Sponsor. The owner, manager, or other person or entity designated to represent the
interests of an airport.
L. Airport Uses. Those uses described in OAR 660-013-0100 and 660-013-0110.
M. Approach Surface. A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and
extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface.
For Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports:
1. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it
expands uniformly to a width of:
a. 1,250 feet for a utility runway having a visual approach;
b. 1,500 feet for other than a utility runway having a visual approach;
c. 2,000 feet for a utility runway having a non -precision instrument approach;
d. 3,500 feet for a non -precision instrument runway, other than utility, having
visibility minimums greater than three -fourths statute mile;
e. 4,000 feet for a non -precision instrument runway, other than utility, having
visibility minimums at or below three -fourths statute mile; and
f. 16,000 feet for precision instrument runways.
2. The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of
a. 5,000 feet at a slope of 20 feet outward for each foot upward for all utility
runways;
b. 10,000 feet at a slope of 34 feet outward for each foot upward for all non -
precision instrument runways, other than utility; and
c. 10,000 feet at a slope of 50 feet outward for each one foot upward, with an
additional 40,000 feet at slope of 40 feet outward for each one foot upward, for
precision instrument runways.
3. The outer width of an approach surface will be that width prescribed in DCC
18.80.0221 }(M)(3) for the most precise approach existing or planned for that runway
end.
For the Cline Falls and Juniper airports:
4. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it
expands uniformly to a width of 450 feet for that end of a private use airport with only
visual approaches. The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of 2,500 feet
at a slope of 20 feet outward for each one foot upward.
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
N. Average Day -Night Sound Level (DNL). Average day -night sound level is the FAA standard
measure for determining the cumulative exposure of individuals to noise. DNL is the equivalent
of noise levels produced by aircraft operations during a 24-hour period, with a ten -decibel
penalty applied to the level measured during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 am).
O. Conical Surface. An element of the airport imaginary surfaces that extends outward and upward
from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20:1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000
feet and to a vertical height of 350 feet above the airport elevation.
P. Department of Aviation. The Oregon Department of Aviation, formerly the Aeronautics Division
of the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Q. FAA. Federal Aviation Administration.
R. FAA's Technical Representative. As used in DCC 18.80, the federal agency providing the FAA with
expertise on wildlife and bird strike hazards as they relate to airports. This may include, but is
not limited to, the USDA -APHIS -Wildlife Services.
S. FAR. Regulation issued by the FAA.
T. FAR Part 77. Regulation, Part 77, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace," establishes standards
for determining obstructions to navigable airspace.
U. Height. The highest point of a structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth,
measured from mean sea level.
V. Horizontal Surface. A horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the
perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each end
of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines
tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is:
1. 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility.
2. 10,000 feet for all other runways.
3. The radius of the arc specified for each end of a runway will have the same arithmetical
value. That value will be the highest determined for either end of the runway. When a
5,000-foot arc is encompassed by tangents connecting two adjacent 10,000-foot arcs,
the 5,000-foot arc shall be disregarded on the construction of the perimeter of the
horizontal surface.
W. Non -precision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure
utilizing air navigation facilities with only horizontal guidance, or area type navigation
equipment, for which a straight -in non -precision instrument approach has been approved, or
planned, and for which no precision approach facilities are planned or indicated on an FAA -
approved airport layout plan or other FAA planning document.
X. Non -Towered Airport. An airport without an existing or approved control tower on June 5, 1995.
Y. Obstruction. Any structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth that penetrates an
imaginary surface.
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
Z. Other than Utility Runway. A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by turbine -
driven aircraft or by propeller -driven aircraft exceeding 12,500 pounds gross weight.
AA. Precision Instrument Runway. A runway having an existing instrument approach procedure
utilizing air navigation facilities that provide both horizontal and vertical guidance, such as an
Instrument Landing System (ILS) or Precision Approach Radar (PAR). It also means a runway for
which a precision approach system is planned and is so indicated by an FAA -approved airport
layout plan or other FAA planning document.
BB. Primary Surface. A surface longitudinally centered on a runway.
For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, when a runway has a specially prepared
hard surface, the primary surface extends 200 feet beyond each end of that runway. When a
runway has no specially prepared hard surface, or planned hard surface, the primary surface
ends at each end of that runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same
as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface
is:
1. 250 feet for utility runways with only visual approaches,
2. 500 feet for utility runways having non -precision instrument approaches,
3. 500 feet for other than utility runways having non -precision instrument approaches with
visibility minimums greater than three -fourths statute mile, and
4. 1,000 feet for non -precision instrument runways with visibility minimums at or below
three -fourths statute mile, and for precision instrument runways.
For the Cline Falls and Juniper airports, the primary surface ends at each end of a runway. The elevation
of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway
centerline. The width of the primary surface is 200 feet.
CC. Public Assembly Facility. A permanent or temporary structure or facility, place or activity where
concentrations of people gather in reasonably close quarters for purposes such as deliberation,
education, worship, shopping, employment, entertainment, recreation, sporting events, or
similar activities. Public assembly facilities include, but are not limited to, schools, religious
institutions or assemblies, conference or convention facilities, employment and shopping
centers, arenas, athletic fields, stadiums, clubhouses, museums, and similar facilities and places,
but do not include parks, golf courses or similar facilities unless used in a manner where people
are concentrated in reasonably close quarters. Public assembly facilities also do not include air
shows, structures or uses approved by the FAA in an adopted airport master plan, or places
where people congregate for short periods of time such as parking lots or bus stops.
DD. Runway. A defined area on an airport prepared for landing and takeoff of aircraft along its
length.
EE. Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). An area off the runway end used to enhance the protection of
people and property on the ground. The RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the
extended runway centerline. The inner width of the RPZ is the same as the width of the primary
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
surface. The outer width of the RPZ is a function of the type of aircraft and specified approach
visibility minimum associated with the runway end. The RPZ extends from each end of the
primary surface for a horizontal distance of:
1. 1,000 feet for utility runways.
2. 1,700 feet for other than utility runways having non -precision instrument approaches.
3. 2,500 feet for precision instrument runways.
[NOTE: the outer width of the RPZ is specified by airport type in OAR 660, Division 13,
Exhibit 4]
FF. Significant. As it relates to bird strike hazards, "significant" means a level of increased flight
activity by birds across an approach surface or runway that is more than incidental or
occasional, considering the existing ambient level of flight activity by birds in the vicinity.
GG. Structure. Any constructed or erected object, which requires a location on the ground or is
attached to something located on the ground. Structures include but are not limited to
buildings, decks, fences, signs, towers, cranes, flagpoles, antennas, smokestacks, earth
formations and overhead transmission lines. Structures do not include paved areas.
HH. Transitional Surface. Those surfaces that extend upward and outward at 90 degree angles to the
runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of seven feet horizontally for
each foot vertically from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to the point of
intersection with the horizontal and conical surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of
the precision approach surfaces which project through and beyond the limits of the conical
surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach
surface and at a 90-degree angle to the extended runway centerline.
II. Utility Runway. A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven
aircraft of 12,500 maximum gross weight and less.
JJ. Visual Runway. A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach
procedures, where no straight -in instrument approach procedures or instrument designations
have been approved or planned, or are indicated on an FAA -approved airport layout plan or any
other FAA planning document.
KK. Water Impoundment. Includes wastewater treatment settling ponds, surface mining ponds,
detention and retention ponds, artificial lakes and ponds, and similar water features. A new
water impoundment includes an expansion of an existing water impoundment except where
such expansion was previously authorized by land use action approved prior to the effective
date of this ordinance.
18.80.028 Height Limitations
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028.
When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the
underlying zone height limitations shall control. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070]
A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B-D), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural
growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070(1)]
B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces,
where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing
structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary
surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height.
C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport
sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow
the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as
recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FAA (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver.)
D. An air traffic control tower may be up to 115 feet in height.
18.80.044 Land Use Compatibility
Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone
shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise,
the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the
incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where
compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the
incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or expansion, except
where the action results in loss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to
meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by
the Planning Director or Hearings Body. [ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-0080] An air traffic
control tower, as defined in DCC 18.80.022, is not subject to this section.
18.80 Declaration Of Anticipated Noise
As a condition of the grant of development approval pursuant to DCC 18.80, the undersigned,
hereinafter referred to as Grantor hereby covenants and agrees that it shall not, by reason of their
ownership or occupation of the following described real property, protest or bring suit or action against
the [Name of Airport] or Deschutes County, for aviation -related noise, including
property damage or personal injury from said noise connected when such activities conform to:
1. Airport activities lawfully conducted in connection with a pre-existing airport, as that term is defined
in DCC 18.80.0224)(C), at the described airport; or 2. Airport activities that might be lawfully conducted
in the future at the described airport under County or State permits or exemptions.
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
The real property of Grantor subject to this covenant and agreement is situated in Deschutes County,
State of Oregon, and described as set forth in that certain [Statutory Warranty Deed] dated [date], as
record in [the Official Records of Deschutes County as instrument number 20xx-xxxxx] OR [Volume xx,
Page xx of the Deschutes County Board of Records];.
Grantor acknowledge that by virtue of such grant he/they have no remaining rights to complain or
protest about the protected activities described above.
This Declaration of Anticipated Noise runs with the land and is binding upon the heirs, successors and
assigns of the undersigned's interest in the described real property or any persons acquiring through he
undersigned an interest in the described real property.
Deschutes County requires the execution of this covenant and agreement by the Grantor as a pre-
requisite to Deschutes County approving a partition, subdivision, or issuing a building permit for
Grantor's development on the above described real property, which real property is located within the
noise impact boundary of the [Name of Airport]. This Declaration is executed for the
protection and benefit of the [Name of Airport] and Deschutes County's interest in
said airport and to prevent development in adjacent lands to said airport which will interfere with the
continued operation existent and development of said airport.
Dates this day of , 20
Grantor [Name]
[insert notarial certificate]
Exhibit 1: Proposed Text Amendments
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A
LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
• The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the approval requested.
• Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the approval criteria, as well
as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use
regulations which any person believes apply to this decision.
• Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the
Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to
the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally,
failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the approval with
sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for
damages in circuit court.
• The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record and the Staff Report
and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing.
• The hearing will be conducted in the following order.
1. The staff, as applicant, will give a report.
2. Members of the public testify and present evidence.
3. Staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments.
• The Board may limit the time period for presentations.
• If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the question to the
Chair. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness.
• The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of the Board.
• If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain.
• If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for additional written
evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open to a date certain for submittal of new
written evidence or testimony.
• If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed a
period to a date certain after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written
arguments but no new evidence in support of the application.
® Commissioners must disclose any conflicts of interest. Does any commissioner have
anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature and extent?
® Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on conflicts of interest?
x‘svTES
BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: November 29, 2023
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Update
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Open the public hearing for the Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update.
Upon conclusion of the staff presentation and public comments, the Board may:
• Hold the oral and written record open and continue the hearing to a date certain
• Close the oral record and hold the written record open to a date certain
• Close both the oral and written record and set a date certain for deliberations
• Close both the oral and written record and begin deliberations
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
On November 29, 2023, the Board owill hold a public hearing to consider the Draft 2020-
2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update (Files 247-23-000507-PA, 508-TA). The full
record is located on the project webpage:
https•//www deschutes.org/cd/pa e/g transportation-s stem-plan-update-2020-2040-
247-23-000507-pa-508-ta
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The draft TSP document outlines cost estimates associated with various transportation
improvement projects for the 2020-2040 planning period.
ATTENDANCE:
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
Chris Doty, Road Department Director
Cody Smith, County Engineer/Assistant Road Department Director
Matt Kittelson, Kittelson and Associates (KAI)
01- ES
COMMUNITY DEVELOP ENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
DATE: November 20, 2023
RE: Public Hearing: Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan (TSP) - November 29,
2023
The Road Department, with the assistance of the Community Development Department (CDD), has
prepared an update of the 2010-2030 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP). The new
TSP will cover the years 2020-2040. The TSP focuses on County arterials and collectors as well as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and other modes. Following a work session on November 27, 2023 in
preparation for a public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will hold a public
hearing on November 29, 2023, on the draft 2020-2040 TSP.
I. BACKGROUND
The County selected Kittelson & Associates Inc. (KAI) as the consultant for the 2020-2040 TSP. The
County and KAI prepared the draft of the 2020-2040 TSP based on technical analysis, public
comments, and internal staff review. During the plan development process, KAI and County staff
from the Road Department and Planning Division have coordinated with Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) and staff from other local jurisdictions. KAI and County staff reviewed a
proposal from the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on future road
improvements and connectors. Additionally, KAI and the County held an on-line presentation from
April 27 to May 14, including an online public meeting on May 4, to solicit public comment. The on-
line presentation included technical memos on plans and policy reviews, goals and objectives, and
needs analyses of existing and future conditions.
The background materials were posted at the following link:
Deschutes County TSP Update (kaiproject.com)
The full record including public and agency comments is included at the following project -specific
website: https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/transportation-system-plan-update-2020-
2040-247-23-000507-pa-508-ta
1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 J P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
e(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org www.deschutes.org/cd
II. KEY ASPECTS OF THE 2020-2040 TSP
The TSP's major component is a list of future projects categorized into high, medium, or low priority.
These appear in Chapter 5 with a brief description of the project. The relevant project tables are for
improving roadway intersections; roadway changes; changes to functional classifications; ODOT
intersections and roadways; pedestrian facilities on County roadways; bicycle facilities, bridges,
Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) roadways, transit, and Transportation Safety Action Plan
(TSAP) projects. Many of the roadway projects also benefit bicyclists by widening shoulders, for
instance. The financial portion benefitting bicyclists is provided in the cost estimates.
The TSP also presents goals and policies to achieve the vision of the County's transportation system
over the next 20 years. The seven goals are:
1. Coordination and Collaboration
2. Safety
3. Mobility and Connectivity
4. Economic Development
5. Equity and Accessibility
6. Sustainability and Environment
7. Strategic Investments
III. INTENDED OUTCOMES
The 2020-2040 TSP will result in a list of prioritized projects, updated goals and policies, changes to
functional classifications of selected County roads, a better network of bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, transit stops in the unincorporated communities, and an improved transportation system
for all modes.
The TSP will assist the Board in determining projects to fund in the Road Department's annual
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as well as providing a reference when pursuing state and
federal grants to fund transportation projects. Additionally, planners cite the TSP when reviewing
land use applications for developments that involve a plan amendment or zone change.
IV. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
Staff held a June 22, 2023, work session' with the Planning Commission (PC) to provide an overview
of the updated TSP and the process to create it. The PC held a public hearing2 on August 10, 2023,
on the draft 2020-2040 TSP. The PC closed the oral record and left the written record open until 4
p.m., August 24, 2023. Staff provided an update on record submittals during the August 24, 2023
Planning Commission meeting3. The PC held deliberations4 on October 12, 2023, ultimately making
1 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-30
2 https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-38
https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-39
https://www.deschutes.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-41
Page 2 of 5
a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to adopt the TSP document
including the following amendments:
• Removal of the Conceptual Multi -use Pathway Connection between City of Sisters and Black
Butte Ranch. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner in opposition)
• Changing the Multi -use Pathway Connection between Baker Road and Lava Butte to be
located on the west side of Highway 97 rather than the east side. (7 Commissioners
unanimously in favor)
• Changing the priority status for the 2nd Street/Cook Ave sidewalks in Tumalo project (Table
5.5 ID BP-3) from Medium to High. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent)
• Changing the priority status for the US 20/Powell Butte Highway Roundabout project (Table
5.4 ID S-9) from Low to High. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1 Commissioner absent)
• Changing the priority status for the US 20/Locust St Roundabout project (Table 5.4 ID S-11)
from Low to High and noting that the project, with contributions from Deschutes County,
City of Sisters, and ODOT, is funded for construction in 2024. (6 Commissioners in favor, 1
Commissioner absent)
Throughout deliberations, the Planning Commission entertained other motions including the
allowance of multi -use pathways generally within the County jurisdiction and dark skies standards.
On both motions, the Planning Commission's vote resulted in a tie, leading to the failure of those
motions. Staff includes this information to illustrate how the Planning Commission was generally
closely aligned on certain deliberative aspects of these topics, but ultimately diverged on some of
the more detailed points.
In anticipation of the Board's public hearing on November 29, 2023, notice was provided to the
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on July 6, 2023 with a Notice of
Application sent to agency partners on July 21, 2023. Additionally, an initial Notice of Public
Hearing was published in the Bulletin newspaper on October 10, 2023 listing the public hearing
date as November 8, 2023. Due to scheduling conflicts, the public hearing date was moved to
November 29, 2023 and an amended Notice of Public Hearing was subsequently published in the
Bulletin newspaper outlining the new public hearing date and process.
V. PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Overall, approximately 150 public comments were received from both individuals and public
agencies as of the date of this memo. The main topics within the public testimony include:
• Allowance/disallowance of multi -use pathways in the rural county related to wildlife values
and resource -zoned lands;
• Multi -use pathway connection between the City of Sisters and Black Butte Ranch (BBR);
• Potential development of a footbridge across the Deschutes River near the Brookswood
neighborhood of Deschutes River Woods;
• Classification change and improvement of Sunrise Boulevard;
• Deschutes River Woods South Interchange Project;
• City of Redmond US97 South Interchange (Quarry or McVeigh);
Page 3 of 5
• A desire to see the Three Rivers community as the subject of a comprehensive planning
process similar to Tumalo or Terrebonne with goals and policies reflecting the needs and
priorities of that local population;
• Requests for several specific infrastructure improvement projects in the Three Rivers area
including pedestrian improvements, intersection safety improvements, roundabouts along
Highway 97, and speeding mitigation;
• Concerns with operational aspects of the Bend Municipal Airport;
• Requests to change priority statuses for several transportation -related projects;
• Designation of bicycle routes;
• Adequacy of County -based public transit;
• Vegetation management practices for County transportation facilities.
As a reminder, the written comments in public record appear at the following project -specific
website under the tabs labeled "Comments & Submittals - Agencies", "Comments & Submittals -
Public", and "BOCC Hearing - Public Comments":
https://www.deschutescounty.gov/cd/page/transportation-system-plan-update-2020-2040-247-23-
000507-pa-508-ta
The Sisters-BBR multi -use pathway connection has generated numerous e-mails and phone calls,
some prior to the initiation of the TSP public process and some during the Comprehensive Plan
process. Regarding the subject land use before the PC, the bulk of the submitted written comments
have been in opposition with a small amount being in favor. Recurring themes from those opposed
include concerns about the public using private paths in BBR; adverse effects to the forest; potential
trespassing; criminal activity; attracting transients; disruption to wildlife; and safety. (Staff notes the
multiuse path would lie on Deschutes National Forest (DNF), which has its own regulations and
environmental review process.)
Concerning multi -use pathways generally, the TSP (at Table 5.6 - Bicycle Route Community
Connections) describes and prioritizes connections between various cities, unincorporated
communities, and destination resorts. Table 5.7 (Bicycle Route Recreation Connections) provides
similar information about these corridors. Neither table lists design specific aspects such as precise
routes, widths, surface type, etc., as those variables would be determined prior to actual
construction. No specific alignments are identified or mapped, except for the Bend -Lava Butte Trail,
which appears as S-3 on Figure 5-4 (ODOT Facility Changes). The TSP tables were prepared based
on input from the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). There has
been a mix of public input regarding the overall allowance of multi -use pathways in Deschutes
County with the bulk of testimony opposed to a full prohibition of multi -use pathways and
additional comments in support of the prohibition based on wildlife habitat and resource -zoned
property sensitivities.
Regarding the specific improvements requested for the Island Loop Way canal crossing/culvert and
the larger Three Rivers community in general, the Road Department Director Chris Doty has
provided individual responses to multiple comments received from the Three Rivers community
related to project feasibility, funding, and legal constraints and will be available for questions during
the public hearing on November 29, 2023.
Page 4 of 5
V. NEXT STEPS
The Board will hold a public hearing on November 29, 2023. The Board has several options at the
conclusion of the staff presentation and public comments. The Board may:
• Hold the oral and written record open and continue the hearing to a date certain
• Close the oral record and hold the written record open to a date certain
• Close both the oral and written record and set a date certain for deliberations
• Close both the oral and written record and begin deliberations
Eventually, the Board will hold deliberations on the proposed TSP. Ultimately, the Board will vote on
the proposal either adopting the plan as drafted, with amendments, or denying the plan.
VI. CONCLUSION
Staff is prepared to answer any questions.
Attachments:
1. Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan
2. Draft 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Appendices
3. 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan Findings
Page 5 of 5
001
0
u 1
<e
1_
1
N
0
L
0
0
0
1
CO
N
1
N
d"
N
4U
._
1
November 29, 202
Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing
Baring Procedure
w
• 0
4J
-' 4•0
Bio 0
0) 14-
4-0 bO
u i
ets
cu
O
u =
0 4-1
by 2 O O C+
imem Q.
�• O
.i § i
fa
4. 44.
CU -� 4a co W
to to I—
� . . .
gr-
N M
1. The Applicant
Project Website and Full Record
(13
rt5
O ro
▪ i
ob
c
co Ln
n3
04)
Ln
C)
m
eo1
SZ o
LCD �
CD®
Co
AS 0
�f�A
biz,
c
'i
co
a)
2
stain
>NI
Piz
'a
O
1-am
4-)
115
bi3
C
•—,
�A
.471
I
➢ In -person and remote participation meeting format
➢ Before starting your testimony please provide:
First and Last Name
r-
2. Mailing Address
• Applicant = 30 minutes
Applicant Rebuttal = 10 minutes
•
4NJ
ca
CL
'u
7-1;
R
a
c
0
a)
a
c
L �
® s
4-' .a4 '
+ cu i
..4 Iv, (11
> .0
E o
s 0.
VI 0 a.a
1.0
.- _
1 C o
ca 0
CU aU s
CU .VI s .ro
Li
0. fa a)
M a)
e
C 0. ro
to z +a
A A A
til
iima
C
CO
CI.
'u
. 471
(13
Om
v
4.i
a)
➢ To testify remotely you must attend using Zoom
TS
M
in
O
M
VI 4-1 M
C
r
.CL is
V i
°1+ 4-1
" -a
es L
o_
m
O O
O N � i
MEM
t6 O
4-1
In 4a
dJ CI)
O L
O Ks
L O
6 -§" .."
O -c
co cu
cu In
in 75
co
4a
A
Vi
CD
O
QJ
._
Raise Hand (Dial -in)
Computer / Smart Device
Enter *9 on your keypad
Press the Raise Hand button
0
4.0
w4.1
ma
VI
CU _o
ea
in
ra 4.0
o
Sim ›ki
_ C
MI 0 =
E e
o
C 4.)
tip 6471
•r a) a
®+ r
CCS a-+
17
CI) •••• .�.
6 EMS]
IMMEI
L.
A
Remote - Email to staff:
Orderly & respectful hearing
Commissioner disclosures
Objections to hearing format
A A A
ro
"CD
cu
O
C
l/1
iii-
lein
0
V
0)
V
IA
N
Q)
4-1
a)
E
CU
CU
0
(0
L
0
CD_
coc
H
•
(0
a.
•
CU
L.
cu
E
O
V
c
(0
L)
c
0
V
+-J
4-J
(0
t/1
4—J
•O
s_
0
4-
0
c
,O
(0
N
.O
1
(0
Q)
0
a.
1_
(0
>+
0
rq
c
cu
+-3
L
QJ
0
N
E
cL
E
C
(0
n
>
ro
0
N
L
c
.(0
c
rz
0
ro
c
1
CU
CU
0_
0
N -
.O
L
0
Q.
0
t
Vl o
c
Ora
V L O
t/1 bp
CU IP
t/1
CD
CC )
• •
•
L.
CU
V
0
ro
ro
0
bA
rri
bA
Ln
a)
CC
•
ro
a)
ro
ro
ro
-1�
CU
Q
L..
O
c
O
i
0
ro
O_
O_
aJ
i
ro
ro
V
A
0
a)
0
O
0
ro
L
cur a O
n
...AlJ
a)
c +J
c •
O -o „,
a) rco CU
-C E
4 a.,
N a) >
O
CU >
a)
0
•
4-0
ro1
c ro
0 ro
ro
O a)
O- W
no o
c 'O
c
V
�
aJ
v
co
cC V
• •
4J ro
c
a)
^�
OtC ^ 1
73
•O �a.) (i)
bA bA
ro c
.c
la CD'
r
� V 0 w
r(10
O V +,
e- 1
o0 O
:E -2„,
• •
0
ro
ro
7.3
0
CC
i
CL
a)
^1
)
0
E
ro 0
cu bA I—
bA •c
v O
C-5
V +2 u Q be,
ro E
�
o `
ro V 'v n ro
c c
-N bA o_ .—
ro ro =
VO Itt v 1)
L
O V CL >' >'
CL i _C v .v .v
CU i a c
c v O
ro +a CU >�
- = u E v o
N N bAcu � V�
O
Cl to ro 0 �O N
V N N _c U
,u) ci- ,.. 2 - '2 = 0 IN CO CZ O V
Lyn
CU
00)
warm
lastermallal
-N
C
O Q)
"(7
(0 • •O
O L
•V N
(0 CD_
Q
u Q
•
E• eNi
E
N
N
Or•I N
f0
•— a)
73 .0
CU N
N O
�n =
O c
= N
• Q
a) O
O ra
r0
Lc
-�-� O
L iz
• •
0
CU
.O
L
cl)
O
0
73
ro
E
O
cl)
•
cL
0
0_
0
(0
0
•
iDA
c
0
0
0
CU
L)
v
v
CU
E
E
O
vi
0
c
CU
N C-
F, -O
O
ccO
•0
•
(0
L
O
0
CO
a
bA
ru
V
L.
cu
0
0
CIJ
CIJ
•
concern.
0
0
• •
a)
ro
ntroduction
Investments
a)
N
0
ro
Table 1-1: Total Cost of Prioritized TSP Investments
c
O
u
U
EDS
N
C
L
U
O
LO
O
O
O
LO
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
N
0
O
O
O
co,
c4
z
0z
<a
cc
o�
Q. w
N
Z
Q
CC
Investments
ro
CU
°CI"
c
O
V
co
c
0
ro
0
ro
� -1
O
V
a
•
4J
•
ry t O
"0 ICJ
0
025
N
E
bA O
fo e-
cir
QJ
io
O
•
tin
an sti*r r��
Coxi=q{1F C41<c5 rMl,'
VI
a
Reconstruction/
l.J
O
cu
1D.0
ro
V
ro
97-
co
Future Arterial
Forest Highway
I
•
ro
t3 >‘
- J . ,.,_
.0
as c
..c §▪ -
4-, 0 bA -0
C (1) •
In
-1-• cU U la -id t)
c
▪ -• L• ) C (1) 0
a) (13 n •" • —
• Ilmomm., C 4+. . 'a (0
cu
2 -0* tO 73, aJ n
0_ s-- ro
>, 0 s_ as _
r 0 • 0 cu
o c -76‘ 7.§ sC—
Q) "0
E • .4...)
irl ro
CL C ti ra
a) >. • 4., aj a) in
1--)40 •
n C C s- •-- L... =
u n ro = .
• 0 e-N
• 0 -1=i I- +a V
9 •
,
,L
,8
3
c.6616,6"-
cJ
• 0,4 D6,6•6,,,,,
A V ft
L66,8 (3,W8 t.A6<•"686
C;_'
:76
o
Tumalo Area
Terrebonne Area
sc,
4...)
0
c)
• •
4 -
4
se
r
i
i ,..
, •, .,,,. ,..
,,....4.
i''''A '';', ''., ,,, , , ,•.:, -;',.
,',,, -,",', • .
0.1
11
0
•
110 cQ)
0 bA
in — •
ft1 1--
.5<"" N
a)
so - 7`)
L._
C CL
a ) 47, r o V
E fts ° c
CU±2"000
k.) 47,
ro _CD 4-1 —0
C
ro
$31 cu 0 CU ra 0
CC IA -0
• •
a• 3
St SJ
kid
Wassimatiek
` CU
o
v
N O
E cu
ki
O
L.-
CI- 0
L
•-
L O
• •
O
V
cu
O
0-1141A hAT 1?L5
FS 41 04/ NC
t 0 1. ylt4v"mli OR
th
6j
CASCADE LAKES 1414Y
• :-
0
rD
LLI
Di
c
ro
s.....
H
O m
0-
O v1
O ro
0
u 4-J
cu ti)
vs c
O a)
L.) 1—
•
cu
u
c
a)
CD
ID
c
ro
a.
O
ro
a
•
-I-) .N
4J c
u m
•> O
>` u
V CU
4J..
V) 4-
rri O
v
u ro
.c Q)
_c .2.2
c r
u O
-F-+
u O
•I u
c
O •c
•
ro
cu
•
in
ro
H
in
w
v
N
V
.
-N
0
u
c
LE
.i
v)
CC
ro
0
0
O
.
vi
CU
-N
c
E
E
0
c
N
CU
0
v
0
V
-
E
E
u
.
UOA
c
vi
v
.i
in
.
T
E
CU
u
E
O
L
Li-
(i)
4-4
z_
0
0
N
N
s-
m
0
v
s-
L)
C
O C(I)
^ W , 1-
CU V 1
• (13
V V1 V]
O O v
a-' - -0
.� c
O
-N
C V V1
O LI O
C
73
•
and severe crashes
• Focused on fata
• TSP project
mprovement
• sosissie
SiNam
• fasiassi
•
c
standards remain
ro
c
*-1-J
ro
0
•
Li)
+-•
c
u
0
u
bip E
cu
c > ro
•v)r-1 (13 0 C.)
)
LIJ CL CU
• •
revenues
•
0
0
smasszsia
smasestans
vl
VCU Q)
• . 'o
O
C bA
c O v)
a) •—
-: .N V ,N
• - .�.., 4-.i..J
O 'L O 'i
-I-) 0 r0
+ -a -O O
N Q. co i.1 c
a) cu0 0 -o
c as
v,
Q n. r�
O •o
L. N .O tp .1n
a) lao 4-
CU
LL v1 N := C].. E V
rus v° a.
S v
a; 'Ov bA VI trz ca. -c 4-ra c =
_ n r6 r�
0 o0 c uro co
ro O o •� a_ a� +)
-cO -o bO -c) ry 0
O
>= 010 Li m V V c
• • • • •
ackground
m
N
o
‘4.
® N c
.10 V
75 tto TuI
= -a z ..c
tv
_ N
T.: 7.1" c
o
rcs c
a) = °Z;
-a
ligki cu cu"
.c es
= a) ma-)
c W c
•_ -a •2
0
0
0 _ Vf
•® •L •- m
E rn a, E
esi
�
Eo
N
®N �
ucift0 0 r
110 r � C* "
1..
.cE, 4-iv,
= c "E' -0
i to 4wc o
n, m C2. (11 tia
0
0
.O c
0
c
in 0)
E
cu
E c
E •�
0 0
V
i
•0
1
ago
E .E
0 OM=
V u
•_
c
Connection
ro
ro
0
CU
4J
2
Conceptual
4J
4-
0
E
cc
L.
4J
0
._
.�
E
V
c
ro
Q)
U
("0
m
ro
a)
0
Connection
r0
4J
0_
o
0
cu
-o
a)
a)
0
-o
ro
0
0
a)
CO
rO
rO
r00
(7 Commissioners unanimously in
4J
4J
urrent Status
Street/Cook Ave
c
N
i
4J
0
4J
c
co
U
0 LO
s D
o
n b.4 03 ca
Z3 = _ C U
E ,, m tJ O
O v) — O O
L.
Z Cl- 2 E _1 wc 4--)-, z
00 0 ....,
- q)
— _c
V ® O ® `+— O
� a-J a--' J Orcs .
L.:.0Ln
E ®_ciE
'T Z ca ra ca
Q � (I)L. �� v) v� . _ s...�
O 61) ua) o o 8 .c.: ®
ra O O . ® v� O ® v�
E
V b�0 O .O b.�0 l—
c ra .O
C E '® '® E
'gin 1 U ce U U o o U
i
c
-
CU
>
r0
—
o E2 �-o
V L (n o _E_ L
( 4-J O (3
cn > >
i,71 � s_ u u
s_ u
_c O p oc m o
>, — CD v) _C E E n
a) O in cn °L
MS ® • E ® -I—)C
�
aU a' b-o • ® a' v
n Li
O aJ dJ
® E▪ .
c
a1 E O c
• -C E : 4—)
® • CD.jv7:3 t� O
a) �_ ®
V • O m c(13 -0 N
O ! o 0_c L--0u
ra s u cu c a- N O
�+-) Ca 4-, cn CU -0
u ® can D N
u - CC
a3 `• .� D46
-�-� +-, 1 N (u/>
V to
O ca ® ca N +-a
l'2Ooa® EU®U
NAY
comments
4J
V
0
R3
0
TO
CU
O
a)
0
V
b)A
b.4
CD
c
L_
a)
U
b.0
c
c
c
Q
community
>
Q
E
0
a)
c
improvements
L)
0
V)
CU
2-2
0
0_
Q
To
2
m
CU
11)
O
a)
0
T6
0
0
a)
a)
O
V
O
L_
Q
c
(6
L
N
a)
0
a)
(13
0
CD_
bA
cb
0
0
4J
4J
a)
0
CU
Q
(0
L
0
0
a)
4J
0
4—
O
v
co
CT
-o
U
0
a)
L_
0
a)
E
bO
c
r0
E
0
1-15
bio
• 0 • • 0 •
N
4J
0
c
N
co
'i
w
rti
2
iv
4-0
0
v
w
o?i
aJ
in
6+7J
Project Website and
c2.
cu
a)
a)
z
c
c 47.1L
o c O
u cu
L
.i CC � O
CU fa
S C
1§11
.0 ..
161°
L. i i •�
ra � O �
1§am 4.'
3 4alwave
es
O ® � co 42)
I.®— cu
N O
. 76 4.1 fQ 4a
ZN ® a O
u
in c
S O 0 0 0 w
4.+
0
• Close both the oral and written record and set a date
certain for deliberations
•
W3
CU
1-0
1§.
O
u
c
to
O
c
®O
O co
O
v
0
0
• L.
v) 0
C
(15aU
F—
s_ _c
O v
C cJ
N-0
vi
bA
C C
•
•0
CO
r
m
N
m
DESCHUTES COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM PLAN
Deschutes County
Transportation System Plan
Deschutes County, Oregon
Prepared for
Deschutes County
Prepared by:
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
August 2023
Contents
01 I INTRODUCTION 5
Prioritized Investments For The Future 6
TSP Organization 8
Purpose 9
Guiding Principles And Context 9
Regional Coordination & Community Engagement 10
02 I GOALS AND POLICIES 11
Goal 1: Coordination And Collaboration 11
Goal 2: Safety 12
Goal 3: Mobility And Connectivity 13
Goal 4: Economic Development 14
Goal 5: Equity And Accessibility 15
Goal 6: Sustainability And Environment 16
Goal 7: Strategic Investments 16
03 I NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION 17
Existing Transportation System Conditions 17
Basis Of Need Assessment 18
Evaluation Of Transportation System Alternatives to Address Identified Needs 19
04 I PROVIDING MULTIMODAL SYSTEMS 21
The Roadway System 21
County Roadway Cross -Section Standards 23
Federal Lands Access Program Roadways 25
State Highway Design Standards 25
The Pedestrian System 27
The Bicycle System 27
Transit Services 29
Rail Service 29
Pipelines And Waterways 29
Air Service 29
Bridges 30
Vehicular Performance Standards 30
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
05 I TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT PRIORITIES 31
Project Costs 31
Intersection Changes 32
Roadway Changes 35
Pedestrian Facilities 48
Bicycle Facilities 51
Bridges 56
Federal Lands Access Program Roadways 58
Transit 61
Transportation Safety Action Plan Projects 61
06 I FUNDING 63
Funding Sources 63
Funding Projections — 20 Year Estimate 64
Capital Funding Estimate 65
Road Moratorium Evaluation 66
Impacts of Lifting the Road Moratorium 66
Local Access Road Tools And FAQs 68
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
01 I INTRODUCTION
Deschutes County is located in the heart of
Central Oregon with the Cascade Mountain
Range to the west and the High Desert plateau to
the east. The County covers 3,055 square miles of
natural beauty, outdoor recreation, and is home
to a growing economy. For the last two decades,
Deschutes County has experienced rapid
population growth and has become a national
destination for new residents, visitors and a
center for economic prosperity and progress. In
the past 10 years, the population of the County
has increased by more than 40 percent to more
than 200,000 people today; only 33 percent of
the County's residents live in the unincorporated
and rural areas.
With this unprecedented growth, Deschutes
County faces the challenges of maintaining,
funding, and planning for a transportation
system that both enhances the health and well-
being of residents and supports long-term
economic resilience for businesses, tourism and
recreation. The County's transportation system
must accommodate traffic passing through
enroute to destinations elsewhere in the region,
the day-to-day travel needs of its residents and
those employed here in addition to the influx of
visitors during the winter and summer months.
The County also is home to US 97 and the
Redmond Municipal Airport, which are two of
the crucial components of Oregon's Resilience
Plan in the event of a Cascadia Subduction Zone
Event (an earthquake and/or tsunami striking
the Oregon coast). With limited funding for new
transportation infrastructure, as well as built and
natural environmental considerations, the County
must balance the need to preserve its existing
transportation system with strategic changes to
the system that enables these needs to be met
during the next 20 years.
The County's Transportation System Plan (TSP)
was last updated in 2012. This updated TSP
provides a coordinated guide for changes to
the County's transportation infrastructure and
operations over the next 20 years. Planning
for the County's future transportation
reflects regional and community goals and
values, supports local and regional economic
development activities, and enhances the quality
of life that residents and visitors enjoy and
expect.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
PRIORITIZED INVESTMENTS FOR
THE FUTURE
The identified list of priorities for future
transportation investments reflects the County's
commitment to prioritizing changes to the
transportation system that reflect its focus
on preserving and maintaining its existing
investments. This list of capital investments
identified in the TSP will be reviewed and
prioritized as part of the County's regular
budgeting efforts. For reference purposes,
Figure 1-1 shows how the County prepares its
annual prioritization and budget for maintenance,
operation, and capital expenditures.
Figure 1-1: Hierarchy of Expenditures and Investment
p
The list of prioritized investments in the TSP
is based on this hierarchy and was developed
assuming:
1. Current maintenance and operational
standards remain in place.
2. The County's existing Road Moratorium
(Resolution 2009-118), which limits
acceptance of new road miles into the
County maintenance system, remains in
place.
3. Existing funding levels remain in place and
are occasionally adjusted legislatively to a
level that will roughly match inflation.
4. No significant additional local funding
mechanisms are developed or implemented.
5. State and Federal grant programs are
available at approximately the same
historical intervals and funding levels.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
With this backdrop, the County refined the list
of possible TSP projects by working with its
residents, policy -makers, and partner agency staff
and performing technical analyses of roadways,
intersections, bike facilities, transit, walking
routes, and transportation safety. Many of the
identified projects help to support plans adopted
by the local cities, the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT), other County planning
efforts, the County's Transportation Safety
Action Plan (TSAP) and/or local refinement and
facility plans. Some of the other considerations
that shaped the final list of recommended
investments include:
• Balancing impacts to existing and
developable parcels with County -wide and
community needs;
• Minimizing impacts to Goal 5 resources
(natural resources, scenic and historic areas,
and open spaces);
• Supporting and enhancing key state and
regional economic plans and priorities;
• Identifying key intersections that could be
changed in the future to address known
safety and/or anticipated capacity needs;
• Prioritizing roadway corridors where
strategic investments may be needed to
help support future growth and economic
development in the region, enhance the
safety of all users and/or strengthen
connections between areas of the County
and to other areas in Central Oregon;
• Providing regional bicycle connections that
could serve broad transportation functions,
such as commuting, recreation, or daily
services;
• Modifying key bridges as funding and/or
other opportunities arise;
• Leveraging opportunities for future system
changes that could be provided using funds
from the Federal Lands Access Program
(FLAP), particularly for transportation
facilities providing connections to
key recreational areas and economic
development priorities adjacent to/and or
located within Federal lands;
• Coordinating with Cascades East Transit
(CET) on projects that can help increase
service to the unincorporated areas of
the County as well as to the High Desert
Museum and Lava Lands Visitor Center;
• Enhancing access to the Redmond Municipal
Airport and Bend Municipal Airport; and,
• Leveraging funding opportunities with key
partner agencies and private investments.
The list of transportation investments are
organized into the following categories for
implementation based on complexity, likely
availability of funding, and assessment of need:
• Intersection changes;
• Roadway segments, including changes to
functional classification;
• ODOT intersections and roadways;
• Pedestrian facilities;
• Bicycle facilities;
• Bridges;
• FLAP projects;
• Transit; and,
• Safety.
Table 1=1 shows the list of identified projects by
category and by prioritization. In reviewing this
table, it is important to note that some projects
may be accelerated and others postponed due
to changing conditions, funding availability,
public input, or more detailed study performed
during programming and budgeting processes.
Further, project design details may change
before construction commences as public input,
available funding, and unique site conditions
are taken into consideration. Projects identified
herein may be funded through a variety of
sources including federal, state, county or local
transportation funds, system development
charges (SDCs), through partnerships with private
developers, or a combination of these sources.
In addition, as part of TSP implementation, the
County will continue to coordinate with ODOT
and the local communities regarding project
prioritization, funding, and construction.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
Table 1-1: Total Cost of Prioritized TSP Investments
Intersection Changes
$11,530,000
Estimated Cost by Priority
$14,900,000 $2,100,000
$28, 530,000
Roadway Changes
$6,100,000
$25,000,000 $57,500,000
$88,600,000
County Share of ODOT
Intersections
$19,100,000
$ 3, 000, 000 $19, 000, 000
$41,100,000
Pedestrian Facilities
$600,000
$3,600,000
$2,100,000
$6,300,000
Bridges
$5,700,000
$2,400,000
$7,900,000
$16,000,000
County Share of FLAP
Projects
$600,000
$3,700,000
$4, 500,000
$8,800,000
Total
$43,630,000
$ 52, 600,000
93,100,000
$189,330,000
The remainder of this chapter outlines the organization of the TSP as well as a summary of public
engagement activities and compliance of the TSP with some of the regulatory requirements.
TSP ORGANIZATION
The TSP is comprised of two volumes. Volume
1 is the main document and includes the items
that will be of interest to the broadest audience.
Volume 2 contains the technical memoranda,
data, and related transportation plans that
enhance and support Volume 1.
Volume 1 includes the following:
• Chapter 1 — a brief overview of the planning
context for the TSP;
• Chapter 2 — goals and policies that express
the County's long-range vision for the
transportation system;
• Chapter 3 — the transportation system
deficiencies and needs as well as the process
to develop the TSP's list of planned capital
improvements and transportation programs;
• Chapter 4 — an overview of the
recommended projects for the multimodal
system (this chapter also serves as
the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan);
• Chapter 5 — a list of the multimodal
projects and the costs estimated for their
construction; and,
• Chapter 6 — a summary of transportation
funding and implementation, including
estimated revenue, cost of 20-year needs,
and potential funding sources.
Volume 2 includes the following technical
documents:
• Appendix A: Plans and Policy Review Memo;
• Appendix B: Public Involvement Plan;
• Appendix C: Methodology Memo;
• Appendix D: Transportation System
Conditions, Deficiencies, and Needs Memo;
• Appendix E: Solutions Analysis Memo;
• Appendix F: Preferred Alternatives and
Funding Plan Memo;
• Appendix G: Redmond Municipal Airport
Master Plan; and,
• Appendix H: Tumalo Community Plan
(TCP) Active Transportation Update/Sisters
Country Vision Action Plan Trails Outreach
Update.
While not all of Volume 2 is adopted as part of
the TSP, all of the documents provide useful
information regarding the basis for the decisions
represented in Volume 1.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
PURPOSE
The TSP addresses transportation needs in
Deschutes County except within the Urban
Growth Boundaries (UGB) for Redmond, Sisters,
La Pine and Bend.
The TSP goals, policies, projects, and
implementation tasks are based on technical
analyses and thoughtful input received from
the community, Deschutes County staff, partner
agency staff, and County policymakers. The
TSP identifies transportation facilities and
services that can support the County's adopted
Comprehensive Plan and continued regional
economic development. This TSP provides for a
long-term vision to support growth in jobs and
population in the County as well as improving the
safety for all transportation -users over the next
20 years. The TSP serves as a resource for the
County to make decisions about transportation
and land use by providing:
• A blueprint for future County transportation
investments that improve safety for all
travelers;
• A tool for coordination with state, regional
and local agencies;
• Information to ensure prudent land use and
transportation choices;
• Order of magnitude cost estimates for
transportation infrastructure investments
needed to support system needs, and
possible sources of funding for these
improvements; and,
• Function, capacity and location of future
roadways, sidewalks, bikeways, transit, and
other transportation facilities.
The TSP satisfies the state's requirements as
prescribed by Oregon Statewide Planning Goal
12: Transportation.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND
CONTEXT
The TSP provides a flexible, adaptable
framework for making transportation decisions
in an increasingly unpredictable and financially
constrained future. Decisions about the County's
transportation system will be guided by the
goals contained in Chapter 2, but ultimately the
decisions will be made within the overall context
of the County's land use plans and support
for local and regional economic development.
These guiding plans and principles provide a
foundation for the TSP's goals, policies, and
potential actions.
The Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) require
that the TSP be based on the Comprehensive
Plan land uses and provide for a transportation
system that accommodates the expected growth
in population and employment. Development
of this TSP was guided by ORS 197.712 and
the Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) administrative rule known
as the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR, OAR
660-012-0060).
Per the TPR, this TSP identifies multimodal
transportation needs to serve users of all ages,
abilities, and incomes. As such, solutions to
address existing and future transportation
needs for bicycling, walking, transit, motor
vehicles, freight, and rail, and improved safety
for all travelers are included. Further, one of the
implementation steps of the TSP will include
proposed amendments to the Deschutes County
Code. As required by the TPR, this TSP was
developed in coordination with local, regional
and state transportation plans.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
REGIONAL COORDINATION &
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The TSP reflects the County's continued
commitment to coordinating transportation
and land use planning within Central Oregon.
This update was collaboratively developed by
community members, businesses, the freight
community, ODOT, Sisters, Redmond, La Pine,
Bend, Terrebonne, Sunriver, Tumalo Cascades
East Transit (CET), and the County's Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).
Opportunities for engagement included:
• Project website that included all technical
reports, draft goals and objectives, and links
to other relevant documents;
• Project Management Team Meetings
attended by County staff;
• Two Advisory Committee Meetings;
• Four Agency Partner Advisory Committee
Meetings;
• Two Public Open Houses;
• Targeted outreach with community and
social service organizations; and,
• Updates with the Board of County
Commissioners.
Through these activities, the County provided
community members with a variety of forums to
identify their priorities for future transportation
projects, programs, and policies.
10
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
The TSP provides a coordinated guide for
changes to the County's transportation
infrastructure and operations over the next 20
years. The development of the TSP is based on
the assumption that the transportation system
meets daily travel needs and also contributes
to the physical, social, and economic health
of the County and of Central Oregon. The TSP
strives to provide users with a safe and efficient
transportation network. As such, planning for the
County's future transportation needs must be
conducted within regional and community goals
and values, support local and regional economic
development activities, and enhance the quality of
life that residents and visitors enjoy and expect.
LICI
The TSP goals provide the County's visions for
the future transportation system. The goals
are aspirational in nature and may not be fully
attained within the 20-year planning horizon. The
policies support the goals to help the County
implement the TSP projects and programs
after the TSP has been adopted. The policies,
organized by goals, provide high-level direction
for the County's policy and decision -makers and
for County staff. The policies will be implemented
over the life of the TSP. The County's 2012 TSP
goals and policies were used as a foundation for
providing the updated TSP goals and policies
outlined below.
GOAL 1: COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION
Promote a multimodal transportation system that supports the County's Comprehensive Plan and
is consistent and coordinated with the adopted plans for the State, the region, adjacent counties,
and the cities and incorporated communities within the County.
Policies
1.1 Coordinate the design and operations of the
County's transportation system with State,
regional, and local planning rules, regulations
and standards.
1.2 Coordinate future land use and
transportation decisions with state, regional
and local agencies to efficiently use public
investments in the County's transportation
system, for people driving, bicycling, walking,
or using transit as well as the movement of
freight, emergency responses, and evacuation
needs.
1.3 Coordinate regional project development
and implementation with the cities of Bend,
Redmond, Sisters, and La Pine.
1.4 Provide notification to the affected local and
state agency partners regarding land use
development proposals, plan amendments
and zone changes that have the potential
to significantly impact non -County
transportation facilities.
1.5 Coordinate system management and
operations with ODOT on major roadways.
1.6 Maintain an intergovernmental agreement
with each of the cities to provide specific
timelines and milestones for the transfer of
County roadways within the urban growth
boundaries at the time of annexation,
including the full width of right of way.
1.7 Provide regular outreach to residents and
employers, schools, law enforcement and
public health professionals to encourage
participation with the County in identifying
and solving transportation issues.
1.8 Coordinate with CET to implement the Transit
Master Plan recommendations within the
County to support people taking transit.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
GOAL 2: SAFETY
Provide a transportation system that promotes the safety of current and future travel by all users.
Policies
2.1 Design and maintain County roadways
consistent with their expected use, vehicular
travel speeds, and traffic volumes.
2.2 Incorporate the Transportation Safety Action
Plan (TSAP) goals and action items into
County planning projects and update the
TSAP at appropriate intervals.
2.3 Coordinate with the Sheriff's Office to discuss
enforcement activity on specific facilities in
the County and jointly communicate safety
issues when observed and encountered.
2.4 Continue the partnership with the County's
BPAC to promote education and outreach
activities and to inform future County
investment decisions in facilities for people
riding bikes and walking.
2.5 Coordinate with the emergency service
providers in the County to prioritize the
maintenance and investment in key lifeline
and evacuation routes.
2.6 Coordinate with ODOT, railroads, and local
communities to prioritize safety investments
at rail crossings.
2.7 Prioritize investments in key crossing
locations for people walking and riding bikes
across major County roadways and/or ODOT
highways, especially at locations that serve
vulnerable populations.
2.8 Coordinate with ODOT for planning
for grade -separate wildlife crossings of
State highways using relevant wildlife
migration information, crash data, and best
management practices.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan;.
GOAL 3: MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY
Promote a multimodal transportation system that moves people and goods between rural
communities and Sisters, Redmond, Bend, La Pine, and other key destinations within the County as
well as to the adjacent counties, Central Oregon, and the state.
Policies
3.1 Maintain the County's roadway system in a
state of "good repair."
3.2 Invest in new roadways only when a need
has been demonstrated that benefits the
economic growth of the County and/
or locations that address key gaps in the
roadway system and there is sufficient long-
term funding to operate and maintain the
new roadways.
3.3 Monitor the safety, traffic volumes, and
usage by people walking and riding bikes
on County arterials and collectors to
help determine when changes to specific
roadways are needed and/or educational
outreach to the traveling public.
3.4 Maintain a County -wide bicycle route map.
3.5 Partner with ODOT, Bend, La Pine, Redmond,
Sisters, and neighboring counties to
coordinate investment in transportation
facilities that cross jurisdictional boundaries.
3.6 Pursue funding to provide secondary access
roadways to isolated rural subdivisions.
3.7 Periodically review transportation
performance standards used to review land
use applications and modernization projects
and revise if needed.
3.8 Periodically review and update the County
design and construction standards related
to roadways and facilities for people walking
and riding bikes in unincorporated areas.
3.9 Periodically review policies and standards
that address street connectivity, spacing, and
access management.
3.10 Support transit service to improve mobility
within the County and connectivity to transit
stations in Bend, Redmond, La Pine, and
other regional and state destinations.
3.11 Monitor the condition of County bridges
on a regular basis and perform routine
maintenance, repair and replacement when
necessary.
3.12 Partner with local agencies, ODOT, and the
public airports to periodically review airport
master plans for Redmond, Bend, Sisters,
and Sunriver to ensure they and County
development code are consistent.
3.13 Partner with the US Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management to maintain
the County's system of forest highways
to continue to provide key access to
recreational areas such as campsites, lakes,
hiking, and biking trails in the County.
3.14 Coordinate with ODOT to identify County
routes to be used as detours when a crash or
other incident closes a State highway.
3.15 At a minimum, seek dedication of public
rights of way for extensions of existing roads
or future roads on lands not zoned Exclusive
Farm Use or Forest in order to develop a
rural -scale grid system.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
GOAL 4: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Plan a transportation system that supports existing industry and encourages economic
development in the County.
Policies
4.1 Prioritize transportation investments
that support access to allowed land uses,
activities, airports, and recreational areas.
4.2 Maintain arterials and collector roadways
for the movement of people and goods to
employment centers in the County.
4.3 Update and continue to implement the
County's Transportation System Development
Charge (SDC) program.
4.4 Incorporate facilities for people walking and
riding bikes to key recreational areas as part
of changes to the roadway system.
4.5 Support bicycle tourism by prioritizing and
improving designated County bike routes.
4.5 Incorporate improvements to the County
arterial system that support freight service
and provide access to US97, US 20, and OR
126.
4.6 Support economic development
by encouraging ODOT to prioritize
modernization, preservation, and safety
projects on highways designated as Freight
Routes.
4.7 Periodically assess the probability of
providing passenger rail service to and
through Deschutes County.
Deschutes County Transportation System Pan
GOAL 5: EQUITY AND ACCESSIBILITY
Provide a multimodal transportation system
that supports a safe, efficient, and low -stress
environment for walkers, cyclists and transit
users as well as benefits the overall health and
environment within the County.
Policies
5.1 Prioritize investments in the County's
transportation system that support users
of all abilities, ages, race/ethnicity, income
levels, and those with disabilities.
5.2 Design all new transportation facilities
consistent with the requirements of the
American's with Disabilities Act (ADA).
5.3 Maintain a partnership with CET, the cities,
ODOT, and transportation options providers
to promote walking and cycling, public
transportation, micro mobility options,
and rideshare/carpool programs through
community awareness and education.
5.4 Accommodate bicycle, pedestrian, and
transit facilities, when prescribed by
design standards and various master plan
documents, when new roads are constructed
and/or existing roads are reconstructed.
5.5 Maintain road design standards that promote
pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities to
and from schools, community gathering
places, grocery stores, and other services as
prescribed within community plans.
5.6 Establish priorities for construction and
maintenance of roadway shoulders or shared
use pathways to provide for walking and
bicycle travel.
5.7 Partner with ODOT, the cities, CET and other
providers to secure funding for transit service
to underserved areas of the County.
5.8 Support efforts of local agencies to develop
and maintain a trail system along the
Deschutes River, within Tumalo, and along
major irrigation canals.
5.9 Support Commute Options' efforts to work
with major employers, local business groups,
non-profit agencies, school districts to
support implementation of Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) strategies that
provide options employees, residents, and
customers to use transit, walk, ride bikes,
carpool, and telecommute.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
GOAL 6: SUSTAINABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT
Provide a transportation system that balances transportation services with the need to protect the
environment.
Policies
6.1 Partner with BPAC, local agencies, CET, and
non-profit groups to promote the use of
walking, cycling and transit as viable options,
minimize energy consumption, and lessen air
quality impacts.
6.2 Ensure changes to the County transportation
system are consistent with the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR).
6.3 Comply with applicable state and federal
noise, air, water, and land quality regulations
as part of transportation investments in the
County.
6.4 Preserve listed Goal 5 resources within the
County.
6.5 Implement, where cost-effective,
environmentally friendly materials and design
approaches as part of County transportation
projects (e.g., storm water retention/
treatment to protect waterways, solar
infrastructure, impervious surfaces, etc.).
6.6 Prioritize transportation investments that
support system resilience to seismic events,
extreme weather events, and other natural
hazards.
GOAL 7: STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS
Maintain the safety, physical integrity, and function of the County's multi -modal transportation
network, consistent with Goal 6 of the OTP.
Policies
7.1 Continue to pursue and implement Federal
Lands Access Program (FLAP) funding to
prioritize County investments to support
tourism and access to key recreational areas.
7.2 Maintain long-term funding stability for
maintenance of the transportation system.
7.3 Prioritize investment in the existing
transportation network through maintenance
and preservation activities.
7.4 Coordinate with ODOT and local agency
partners to implement intelligent
transportation solutions that increase the life
of transportation facilities and/or delay the
need for capacity improvements.
7.5 Periodically review and, if needed, make
updates to the County Code requirements
to ensure that future land use decisions are
consistent with the planned transportation
system.
7.6 Coordinate with ODOT in the implementation
of the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) and Statewide Transportation
Improvement Funding (STIF).
7.7 Coordinate with and provide guidance to CET
in programming public transportation funds
received by the County.
7.8 Pursue additional funding sources to support
major reconstruction or replacement of
County bridges.
7.9 Partner with federal and state agencies to
seek funding that prioritize investments that
support recommendations from the Bend,
Redmond, Sisters, or Sunriver airport master
plans.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
The TSP projects and implementation tasks
were informed by technical analyses of existing
transportation conditions, forecast year 2040
deficiencies, and an evaluation of possible
system changes that can meet the transportation
needs for all users (including the transportation
disadvantaged) and address the need for
movement of goods and services to support local
and regional economic development priorities.
The needs assessment, in combination with
thoughtful input received from the community,
Deschutes County staff, partner agency staff,
and County policy makers, formed the list of
recommended projects, the TSP goals and
policies and the funding plan. This chapter
summarizes the key elements of the existing
and future needs analyses; further details of the
needs analyses are provided in Volume 2.
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM CONDITIONS
Existing transportation needs, opportunities,
and constraints reflect an inventory of the
County transportation system conducted in
2019 and 2020. This inventory included all major
transportation -related facilities and services
at that time. Key roadway features (including
number and type of roadway lanes, speeds,
pavement type/condition, traffic volumes and
roadway classifications), traffic conditions, safety
performance, bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
and transit service, among other topics, were
analyzed.
Key findings related to the existing County
system are highlighted below.
• The areas within the County with the
highest percentages of youth are primarily
located in Tumalo and Terrebonne as well as
adjacent to the Bend and Redmond Urban
Growth Boundaries (UGBs). Connections
for school students between their homes,
the local community schools, and school
bus stops were considered in identification
of potential roadway, walking, cycling and
transit projects.
• The highest percentage of elderly
populations is located in the Sunriver area
and adjacent to the Sisters, Redmond, and
La Pine UGBs. The areas adjacent to these
three UGBs are also where the highest
concentration of the population with
disabilities and the minority populations
reside. Coordination with Cascades East
Transit (CET) to serve the existing and future
needs of these residents is included in the
recommended implementation task list for
the TSP.
• Continued coordination between the
County and ODOT and the incorporated
communities will help address and provide
consistency of individual roadway functional
classification designations.
• Roadway repairs are and will continue to be
monitored and accomplished as part of the
County's ongoing maintenance program.
• The County does not have any designated
freight routes that provide connections to
local industrial and employment lands. The
TSP alternatives evaluation explored the
need to designate County freight routes
to serve key economic priority areas to
supplement the ODOT freight system.
• No roadway capacity deficiencies were
identified under existing conditions.
• The County's Transportation Safety Action
Plan (TSAP) identified key locations for
monitoring and potential changes to
the transportation system to address
documented safety deficiencies. The TSAP is
incorporated by reference as part of the TSP.
• Many of the County bikeways and highways
do not have paved shoulders that are at
least six feet wide which is the standard for
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
ODOT highway while the County standard
for paved shoulders is 3-5'.
• The small, unincorporated communities
in the County do not have dedicated
bicycle facilities and several of the
roadways adjacent to schools or other
pedestrian trip generators (parks, trail
connections, rural commercial areas, etc.)
located in Terrebonne and Tumalo are
missing sidewalks. Safe Routes to School
funding may be an option to assist with
implementation of TSP recommendations in
small communities.
BASIS OF NEED ASSESSMENT
The TSP addresses the projects, programs, and
policies needed to support growth in population
and jobs within the County as well as the travel
associated with regional and state economic
growth between now and the year 2040. The
identified set of recommendations reflects
County policy makers' and community members'
priorities to maintain existing facilities and reduce
congestion, save money, improve safety, and
provide community health benefits without costly
increases to automobile -oriented infrastructure.
Over time, the County will periodically update
the TSP to respond to changing conditions and
funding opportunities.
The existing land use patterns, economic
development opportunities, and population and
job forecasts helped inform the analysis of year
2040 needs. This information helped identify
future changes to the transportation system (and
the supporting policies and programs) to address
deficiencies and support economic development
in a manner consistent with the County's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map.
Growth in County Population
By Oregon Revised Statute 195.034, incorporated
cities and counties formulate and adopt
coordinated population projections. Based on
the June 2022 Coordinated Population Report
prepared by the Portland State University (PSU)
Center for Population Research, in 2020 the total
County population was 198,253 and is forecast to
grow to a total population of 275,905 by the year
2040. Much of the County growth is expected
to occur within the Redmond, Bend, and Sisters
UGBs. Within the unincorporated/rural areas, the
2020 population was 59,471 and is anticipated to
grow to approximately 64,000 people by 2040.
The anticipated growth in both urban and rural
population within the County helped inform the
estimation of year 2040 traffic volumes using the
County transportation facilities.
Traffic Volume Development
The expected increase in traffic volumes on key
roadways within the County was based on a
review of past changes in traffic volumes as well
as expected increases in population and area
jobs. Further details on the anticipated growth in
traffic volumes on roadways within the County is
provided in Volume 2.
The deficiencies evaluation included a review
of County arterials and collector roadways. The
roadway capacity needs associated with the State
facilities within the County are addressed through
other planning efforts by ODOT. The County will
continue to partner with ODOT to monitor and
identify additional needs through future planning
and evaluation efforts.
The deficiencies analysis compares the
anticipated traffic volumes on the roadways to
capacity levels associated with a Level -of -Service
(LOS) "D" condition, which is considered by the
County to reflect "acceptable" conditions. From
a planning standpoint, two-lane rural roadways
carrying a total daily volume of less than 24,000
vehicles per day is generally considered to
operate with a LOS "D" or better.
Baseline Roadway Analyses
The baseline (future) analysis forms the
basis of the project list reflected in Chapter
5. This baseline analysis was guided by the
transportation needs identified in previously
adopted plans and policies for the County, ODOT,
and other agency partners, the 2040 population
forecasts and the County's land use map, the
anticipated growth in traffic volumes, and the
fact that there are no major construction projects
that are funded at this time that could materially
change traveler behaviors or traffic volumes on
the County's roadway network in the future.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan,
Baseline (Year 2040) Transportation Needs
In addition to the summary of existing
deficiencies identified in the previous section, the
future deficiencies analysis revealed:
• Two County roadways that would exceed
LOS "D" conditions, including Deschutes
Market Road at Greystone Lane and S
Century Drive at Venture Lane.
• Following adoption of the TSP, the County
will continue to monitor the need for
changes to the transportation system to
address roadway and intersection safety,
especially at the locations included in the
TSAP.
• Although most County roadways do not
have adequate width for comfortable and
convenient connections for people walking
and riding bicycles, providing shoulders
on all County collectors and arterials in
the next 20 years is not feasible due to
constraints such as available right-of-way,
environmental and/or property impacts
and the high costs to construct. The County
will continue to seek opportunities to
provide shoulders, particularly in areas with
significant roadway curvature, hills, bridges
and other locations that could be beneficial
for sharing the road among people driving,
walking and riding bikes. Additionally, many
County roads have low volumes of traffic,
which offsets the substandard shoulders.
• Additional public transportation services are
needed to provide options for people who
cannot or may choose not to drive vehicles.
In the future, transit service will continue to
be coordinated and operated by CET. The
County will continue to collaborate with CET
and ODOT on the prioritization of funding
and operating public transportation services
within and to the County.
• The Redmond Municipal Airport Master
Plan was updated in 2018 to identify needs
through the year 2040. This updated Master
Plan identified the provision of additional
airside facilities, general aviation facilities,
parking supply, passenger facilities, and
non -aeronautical property development
in the vicinity of the airport to support the
Airport through the year 2040.
• No changes to the existing rail or pipeline
facilities were identified to serve the future
needs of the County.
EVALUATION OF
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS
IDENTIFIED NEEDS
The Advisory Committee (AC), Agency Partner
Coordination Committee (APCC), Project
Management Team (PMT), the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
and participants at open houses and other
community forums identified transportation
system alternatives that had the potential to
address existing and future transportation
needs. Many of the potential alternatives help
to support plans that have been identified by
the cities and unincorporated areas within the
County, ODOT, other County planning efforts, the
TSAP and/or local refinement and facility plans.
The identified alternatives address all modes of
travel and include programs that could reduce
vehicular travel demand. Further, these potential
system alternatives avoid principal reliance on
any one mode of transportation and increase
transportation choices for all users. The PMT
developed these ideas into a potential project
list that they screened considering the TSP's
goals and objectives and key County priorities.
The potential solutions were reviewed and
refined through community members and
policymakers to form the 20-year list of projects
reflected in Chapter 5. Through this process,
evaluation of solutions that could address the
identified needs as well as serve to accomplish
key County objectives were identified. Some of
the considerations that shaped the final list of
recommended projects include:
• Balancing impacts to existing and
developable parcels with County -wide and
community needs;
• Minimizing impacts to Goal 5 resources
(natural resources, scenic and historic areas,
and open spaces);
• Supporting and enhancing key state
and regional economic plans and
priorities;
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
• Leveraging future transportation
investments to reduce access, economic,
safety and health disparities within the
County, particularly those areas identified as
serving populations of low income, minority,
youth and/or the elderly;
• Providing additional connections within
Terrebonne and Tumalo for people walking;
• Identifying key intersections where the
roadway geometry and/or traffic control
could be changed in the future to address
known safety and/or anticipated capacity
needs;
• Prioritizing strategic roadway corridors
where vehicular capacity and/or changes to
the roadway characteristics may be needed
to help support future growth and economic
development in the region, enhance the
safety of all users and/or strengthen
connections between areas of the County
and to other areas in Central Oregon;
• Providing regional bicycle connections that
could serve broad transportation functions,
such as commuting, recreation, or daily
services;
• Modifying key bridges as funding and/or
other opportunities arise;
• Leveraging opportunities for future system
changes that could be provided using funds
from the Federal Lands Access Program
(FLAP), particularly for transportation
facilities providing connections to
key recreational areas and economic
development priorities adjacent to/and or
located within Federal lands;
• Coordinating projects included in the CET
Master Plan that can help increase service to
the unincorporated areas of the County as
well as to the High Desert Museum and Lava
Lands Visitor Center;
• Enhancing access to the Redmond Municipal
Airport and Bend Municipal Airport;
• Improving freight mobility; and,
• Leveraging funding opportunities with key
partner agencies and private investments.
The resultant 20-year project list is intended
to address the identified transportation needs,
meet the TSP goals, and reflect the criteria
included in ORS 660-012-0035. The TSP projects
are categorized as high, medium, and low
priorities for future inclusion into the County's
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) based on
the complexity, likely availability of funding, and
assessment of need. The intent of identifying
likely priorities allows the County with the
flexibility to adapt to changing economic
development and community needs over the
next 20 years. The project lists and maps of
the potential locations were posted to the
County's website prior to adoption. Details of
the recommended project lists are provided in
Chapter 5.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
The TSP is a coordinated set of multimodal
policies, programs, and projects that addresses
the transportation needs within the rural and
unincorporated areas of the County over the next
20 years. This chapter provides an overview of
these programs and projects; the detailed project
list and associated cost estimates are shown in
Chapter 5.
Although driving will continue to be the
primary mode of travel in the County and the
preservation and improvement of the existing
roadway system will remain important, the TSP
projects, policies, and programs are intended to
increase transportation choices, reduce reliance
on the automobile by better accommodating
and encouraging travel by foot and bike for short
trips, improve safety for all transportation users,
and provide for improved transit service. The
TSP and the County's adopted land use plans
and regulations are intended to make walking,
cycling, and use of transit convenient.
THE ROADWAY SYSTEM
People driving, walking, biking, and taking
transit all rely on the roadway network to access
destinations locally within the County as well as
regionally within Central Oregon. The identified
roadway solutions in the TSP address mobility,
access, freight, and safety needs.
Functional Classification
The County's functional classification system
provides a system hierarchy based on the
intended function of each type of roadway
(e.g., moving people across Central Oregon or
providing access to local destinations). ODOT
identifies the appropriate classifications for
state facilities whereas the County identifies the
appropriate classifications for roads under its
authority. The classification levels also describe
how the roadway "looks and feels" and provides
recommendations for travel lane widths, roadside
treatments, accommodating bicycles, and the
need for sidewalk or trails adjacent to the road.
The County's functional classification is based on
the following hierarchy:
• Arterials are intended to serve more
regional needs and provide connections
to key activity centers within the County.
They are also intended to represent the
key movement of goods and services
throughout and to/from the County. These
roadways also provide connections to the
incorporated UGBs within the County.
• Collectors primarily connect the rural areas
of the county with the state facilities and the
County arterials. These roadways provide
important connections to much of the
unincorporated areas of the County.
• Forest Highways provide access to
recreational areas such as campsites, lakes,
hiking, and biking trails in the County.
Maintenance of these facilities is provided
by the County and by the Forest Service,
depending on location.
• Local roads serve specific areas within the
County and can be paved or unpaved.
Figure 4-1 presents the County's functional
classification map.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
mom
E
1 >
;
00
•
H SD)0130VOSV3
r-
0) O
5
EIFEDIFTRCAT BIM IF RD
NOME, I
MONTGOMERY RE
SIROITET" ITO
scALE 00000 R 6
/OGE.RD
Df5YLINE RANCH RD
,,
-- --
SW 61ST,ST
Figure 4-1: Functional Classification
COUNTY ROADWAY CROSS-
SECTION STANDARDS
The County's cross-section standards are used
to guide the construction of new roadways
and/or changes to existing roadways. These
standards are updated over time to support the
needs of all users as well as continued economic
development opportunities. Many existing
roadways within the County area are not built to
the standards shown in Table 4-1. The adoption
of these standards is not intended to imply that
all existing roadways be rebuilt to match these
standards, rather the standards will help inform
identified changes to specific roadways in the
future. Further, because the design of a roadway
or corridor can vary based on the needs of the
area, these standards provide flexibility based
on adjacent land use and specific topographic
considerations. The unincorporated communities
of Terrebonne and Tumalo have their own
standards; these are shown in Table 4-2 and
Table 4-3, respectively.
The County standards do not require a sidewalk
except for certain segments in Terrebonne and
Tumalo; people walking or biking are assumed
to use the shoulder or share the road on lower
volume streets. Standards are presented within
the TSP for reference only. DCC Chapter 17.48 (in
particular Table A) contains the adopted County's
roadway standards.
Table 4-1: Minimum Road Design Standards, Rural County (outside of La Pine, Tumalo, and
Terrebonne)
Type/Class
State Hwy
80'-100'
36'-70'
Travel Lane
Width
12'
Paved
Shoulder
Width.
6'
Gravel
Shoulder
Width
Turn Lane Sidewalk
Width Required
14'
No
Minor
Arterial
80'
28'-46'
11'
3'-5'
2'
14'
No
Collector
60'
28'-46'
11'
3'-5'
2'
14'
No
Local Road
60'
20', 24"
2'
No
Industrial
60'
32'
No
Private
20', 28'
No
Frontage
Road
40'-60'
28'
No
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
23
Table 4-2: Minimum Road Design Standards, Terrebonne Unincorporated Community
Type/Class
Travel Paved Gravel
Paved Turn Lane Sidewalk
Lane Shoulder Shoulder
Width Width Required
Width Width . Width
US97
80'-100'
60'
12'
6'
6'
14'
No*
Minor Arterial
Smith Rock
Way
TeC
60'
34'
12'
5'
2'
14'
Yes
TeR
60
34'
12'
5'
2'
14'
No
Lower Bridge Way
60'
34'
12"
5'
2'
14'
No
Collector
Commercial
TeC
60'
24'
12'
2'
Yes
TeR
60'
24'
12'
2'
No
Residential
TeR
60'
24'
12'
2'
No**
Local
Commercial
TeC
60'
24'
12'
2'
Yes
TeR
60'
24"
12'
2'
No
Residential
TeR
60'
20'
12'
2'
No***
Other
Alley
(Commercial)
20'
20'
10'
No
Path/Trail
15' 6' 8'
2.5****
Source: Deschutes County Code 17.48.050, Table A
6-foot sidewalks are required on both sides of US97 between South 11th Avenue and Central Avenue with improved pedestrian
crossings at B Avenue/97 and C Avenue/97
** 5-foot sidewalks with drainage swales are required from West 19th to 15th Street on the south side of C Avenue
*** 5-foot curb sidewalks with drainage swales required along Terrebonne Community School frontage on B Avenue and
5th Street
**** If path/trail is paved
24 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
Table 4-3: Minimum Road Design Standards, Tumalo Unincorporated Community
US 20
80'-100'
Paved Travel Lane
Width Width
60'
12'
Paved.
Shoulder.
Width
4'
Shoulder Turn Lane
Width. Width
6'
14'
Sidewalk
Required
No
Collector
Commercial
60'
30'
11'
4'
2'
14'
Yes
Residential
60'
36'
12'
6'
2'
14'
No
Local
Commercial
60'
20'
10'
2'
No*
Residential
60'
20'
10'
2'
No
Other
Alley
(Commercial)
20'
20'
No
Path/Trail
15'
6'
unpaved
8' paved
2.5'**
No
Source: Deschutes County Code 17.48.050, Table A
*5-foot curbless sidewalks on both sides for roads designated for sidewalks in Tumalo Comprehensive Plan Map D2.
** If path/trail is paved
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS
PROGRAM ROADWAYS
The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was
established to "improve transportation facilities
that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are
located within Federal lands." This program is
intended to supplement State and County funds
for public roads, transit, and other transportation
facilities accessing federal lands with a prioritized
emphasis for "high -use recreation sites and
economic generators." FLAP is funded through
the Federal Highway Trust Fund and its allocation
is based on road mileage, bridges, land area, and
number of visits to the lands.
FLAP provides funding opportunities to
help the County deliver capital projects that
increase access to Federal Lands. In addition,
FLAP is a funding tool to help the County
fund maintenance of existing roads that are
designated as Forest Highways and other roads
that provide similar access.
As part of TSP implementation, the County will
continue to coordinate with all of the federal
agencies, BPRD, CET, and ODOT on the request
for future FLAP -funded projects.
STATE HIGHWAY DESIGN
STANDARDS
Any future changes to the state highways within
the County will be informed by the OHP, the
state's Highway Design Manual (HDM), and the
Blueprint for Urban Design, which provides more
flexible standards for urban areas.
Access Management and Spacing Guidance
Providing appropriate levels of access to adjacent
lands is a key part of operating and planning for
a transportation system that serves the needs
of all users. ODOT and the County maintain
standards to help balance the needs for both
"through travelers" (including freight and public
transportation) as well as serving the localized
needs of residents, employees, and visitors.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
25
For state highways, access spacing guidelines
are specified in the 1999 Oregon Highway Plan,
Appendix C — Access Management Standards.
Access to State Highways is controlled under
Oregon Administrative Rule, Division 51 (OAR
734-051-4020(8)).
The adopted County access spacing standards are
included in DCC Chapter 17.48.
Movement of Freight
The movement of goods and services within the
County and the overall region will continue to
rely upon the state highways, especially those
designated as freight routes. The TSP does not
include a designated freight system of County
roadways.
Traveler Information/ITS
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
infrastructure enhances traffic flow, maintenance
activities, and safety through the application
of technology. The provision of reliable ITS
infrastructure to inform motorists about
incidents, weather conditions, and congestion
has proven to be a useful and cost-effective tool
for the County to manage its roadway system.
ODOT and the County collaborated to update
the Deschutes County ITS Plan in 2020. This
update reflected identified needs, advanced
and emerging technologies, and supports an
integrated Transportation Systems Management
and Operations (TSMO) strategy. The plan
includes recommended TSMO strategies, a
communications plan, and a deployment plan.
This plan is incorporated by reference into the TSP.
Safety
The County's 2019 Transportation Safety Action
Plan (TSAP) provides specific projects, policies,
and programs to address identified safety needs
within the unincorporated areas of the County.
The TSAP is adopted by reference into the TSP.
As part of TSP implementation, the County will
continue to identify future project refinements,
as needed, monitor the timing of intersection
changes at these locations, and seek funding
opportunities and/or the potential to combine
safety -related projects with other project
development within the County.
Several of the safety -based needs for the County
reflect conditions best addressed through
education, enforcement, or outreach programs.
Others may be addressed through systemic
intersection and roadway treatments at specific
locations. The type of treatments that could be
considered by the County are further detailed in
the TSAP and include:
• Roadway Treatments to Reduce Roadway
Departure Crashes — With new road
construction and roadway maintenance
projects, the County may consider the
construction of shoulders (as required by
roadway standards), centerline and shoulder
rumble strips, edge -line striping, recessed
or raised pavement markers, and/or curve
signing upgrades.
• Roadway Treatments to Reduce Speed —
With new road construction and roadway
maintenance projects, the County may
consider lane narrowing at targeted
locations, transverse speed reduction
markings, and speed feedback signs in
conjunction with posted speed limit signs.
At rural communities, changes in roadside
elements can be used to indicate a change
in context to reduce speeds. In addition,
enhanced enforcement at key corridors
could focus on driving at appropriate
speeds.
• Safety Data Monitoring — County staff, in
collaboration with ODOT, will continue to
periodically analyze crash data and identify
the need for engineering, enforcement and
educational treatments at specific locations.
Tools such as ODOT's Safety Priority Index
System (SPIS) and All Roads Transportation
Safety (ARTS) programs may be used to
assist with prioritizing locations.
• Safe Routes to School — The County, Tumalo,
and Terrebonne should seek projects that
improve safety near schools and school
routes, particularly for those walking and
biking to school. These efforts should be
coordinated with infrastructure projects such
as ADA projects.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
• Enhanced Intersection Signing and
Striping Options — At collector and arterial
intersections, the County may consider
enhancements such as advanced warning
signs, double advance signs, reflective
striping and signage, oversized stop signs,
double stop signs, stop ahead pavement
markers, transverse rumble strips, and edge -
line treatments to help increase visibility and
awareness of an intersection. The County
should prioritize the use of treatments that
have documented effectiveness through
the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) or
documented Crash Modification Factors
(CMFs).
The top sites for safety improvements in
unincorporated Deschutes County are identified
in the TSAP and will help inform future funding
and prioritization in the County's Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP).
THE PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM
Outside of the urban areas, sidewalks are needed
in portions of Tumalo and Terrebonne to provide
walking facilities between the residential areas
and schools and the neighborhood commercial
areas. In addition, dedicated sidewalks are
appropriate within one -quarter mile of transit
stops. The County will work with the local
communities, CET and the private sector to
identify funding opportunities to add sidewalks
in these areas over the next 20 years.
Additional changes not specifically identified
in the TSP to the sidewalks, pathways, and
pedestrian crossings treatments at key
intersections may be provided in the future
based on project development and design as
well as funding opportunities. Where applicable,
the County will require sidewalk and/or multiuse
pathway construction as part of future land use
actions per the DCC Chapter 17.48 requirements.
THE BICYCLE SYSTEM
Deschutes County provides and maintains
useable shoulders along roadways for use by
people riding bikes though not all roadways
are currently improved to include such facilities.
The County has an aspirational designated
bicycle route system ("County Bikeways") where
useable shoulders will be provided, as practical,
as part of ongoing maintenance and roadway
improvements projects.
Crossing improvements for people riding bikes,
though not specifically identified in the TSP,
may be provided when bicycle facilities are
constructed that intersect major roads. The
need for and type of crossing treatments as
well as other facility changes will be evaluated
at the time of project development and design.
The County may provide such facilities as
standalone projects or in conjunction with
scheduled maintenance activities. As part of
TSP implementation, the County will evaluate
the need to modify existing DCC Chapter
17.48 requirements related to bicycle facility
requirements as part of future land use actions.
In addition, as part of implementation of the
TSP, changes to the bicycle network will continue
to be informed by the County's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) activities. BPAC's
mission is "to promote and encourage safe
bicycling and walking as a significant means of
transportation in Deschutes County" and focuses
on both changes to the system as well as public
education and awareness and a review of safety
and funding needs as part of implementation of
potential projects.
The County will also continue to partner with
ODOT to identify priority locations along the
state highways for increased shoulder widths
and/or shared use paths.
• * Ina,510.4.a
EMY PAO1fa. COP
atirf CURSWITY
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
27
The County, by reference, will adopt the Map
11 of the Bend Parks and Recreation District's
(BPRD's) Comprehensive Plan (2018) identifying
future trail connections to parks within the
County but outside the Bend (UGB) as well as
those within the Deschutes National Forest. As
noted in the BPRD plan, the trails have been
prioritized for implementation but the actual
alignments in the map are approximate and
subject to future easement/user agreements to
enable trail construction, availability of funding,
and securing agreements from affected property
owners for trailheads and parking areas.
The Redmond Area Parks and Recreation District
(RAPRD) also provides access to trails and
facilities outside of the Redmond City Limits,
including those in Terrebonne and Tumalo and
the Borden Beck Wildlife Preserve. As part of TSP
implementation, the County will coordinate with
RAPRD on the need for and timing of new trails
outside of the Redmond City Limits.
The La Pine Parks and Recreation District also
provides facilities outside of the City Limits, such
as the Leona Park and Rosland Campground.
They are also planning for a working with BLM
on a property transfer of 141 acres to the Park
District that will house a future "South County
Events Area" to include facilities for "campers,
bikers, walkers, hikers, horse owners and others".
The County will coordinate with Park District on
the planning for this new facility as well as overall
access to existing facilities outside the City Limits.
As part of TSP implementation, the County will
coordinate with BPRD, RAPRD, the La Pine Parks
and Recreation District, and the Sisters Park and
Recreation District on the planning for and timing
of new trails outside of city limits. It is important
to note that not all County roadways are
currently or will be designed to provide roadside
parking for trailhead users within the County.
The County will work with each of these parks
and recreation districts to identify appropriate
locations in the future to provide safe access
for trail users as well as to roadway users not
accessing the parks/trails.
Other Programmatic Considerations for the
Pedestrian and Bicycle System
Other policy/programmatic considerations
that the County may incorporate as part of
TSP implementation are dependent on funding
opportunities and potential agency partnerships.
These types of considerations could include:
• Monitoring System — pending availability
of resources, the County could establish a
data monitoring or counting program that
helps to identify and prioritize locations with
higher levels of walking and cycling activity.
In combination with safety reviews through
TSAP and other ongoing regional efforts,
this data monitoring program can help the
prioritization of resources in the future.
• Continued Education and Outreach —
implementation activities might include
topics related to providing the Sheriff's
Department and other emergency services
personnel with training regarding bicycle/
pedestrian safety and enforcement issues;
encouraging and supporting efforts by
County schools or other organizations
to develop and add a bicycle/pedestrian
safety curriculum for students of all ages;
identifying opportunities to install signage
along roadways where bicycle touring
or other significant bicycling activity is
expected advising travelers of the "rules of
the road" pertaining to motorists and non -
motorized travelers, etc.
• Ongoing Maintenance Activities — further
reviewing the budgets associated with
maintenance activities along key cycling
routes, including the periodic removal of
debris including small branches and other
roadside debris that could create safety
hazards for a bicyclist or pedestrian.
• Additional Funding Partnerships - exploring
opportunities for coordination and
cooperation with state and federal agencies
in examining innovative means of providing
or funding pathways, trails, and equestrian
facilities.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
TRANSIT SERVICES
In 2020, CET adopted its Master Plan to reflect
the transit needs of the region through the
year 2040. The CET Master Plan is adopted by
reference into the Deschutes County TSP.
Per the adopted Master Plan, CET will continue
to provide high -quality, available, and reliable
transit service that fundamentally supports the
environment, economic development, and equity
for all travelers. Within the unincorporated and
rural areas of the County, the CET Master Plan
identifies the following:
• Increasing local circulation via local Dial -A -
Ride and/or Community Connector vehicles;
• Providing service to Crooked River Ranch via
shopper/medical shuttles;
• Potential service to Eagle Crest and/or
providing a stop in Tumalo along Route 29;
• Changes to the bus stop for Deschutes River
Woods (e.g., Riverwoods Country Store) or
an alternative way to serve Deschutes River
Woods via Route 30;
• Re-routing existing service lines to Sunriver;
• Adding service to the High Desert Museum
and Lava Lands Visitor Center (potentially
seasonally based); and,
• A new Route 31 and/or modification of
Route 30 to connect La Pine and Sunriver.
Finally, the transit capital investments identified
in the CET Plan include fleet replacement and
expansion and transit stops enhancement and
additions. The County and CET will continue
to partner on transit projects that serve the
community.
RAIL SERVICE
Freight rail service will continue to be
an important, energy efficient mode of
transportation. The TSP supports the continued
use of freight rail tracks and service provided in
the County by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) Railway and Union Pacific (UP) Railroad.
The TSP also supports the continued use of the
City of Prineville's short line freight railway that
runs from Redmond to Prineville along OR 370.
The nearest passenger rail service is and will
continue to be provided in Portland and in
Chemult. No passenger rail service is anticipated
within the County within the next 20 years.
PIPELINES AND WATERWAYS
Today, there is one natural gas pipeline in the
County that parallels US97. The TSP recommends
continued coordination with the gas pipeline
operator to provide continued services within
the County. No additional pipeline facilities are
anticipated within the next 20 years.
There are no navigable waterways located
in Deschutes County but there are several
waterways and lakes that are used recreationally.
As local and regional destinations, access to
these bodies of water facilitate tourism, economic
development, and environmental conservation
efforts. Major bodies of water include Paulina
Lake, East Lake, Wickiup Reservoir, Crane Prairie
Reservoir, Sparks Lake, the Crooked River, and
the Deschutes River. The TSP recommends
enhancements to the roadways accessing these
recreational areas to improve safety for all users.
AIR SERVICE
Within the County, the largest public use airport
is the Roberts Field -Redmond Municipal Airport
(RDM) located in southeast Redmond. The Bend
Municipal Airport, Sunriver Airport, and Sisters
Eagle Airport are also available for public use.
The TSP supports the continued use of these
airports for service within the County in the
future.
The TSP adopts by reference the City of
Redmond's Airport Master Plan (as Updated
in 2018) to reflect the needs of the Redmond
Municipal Airport through the year 2040. This
updated Master Plan includes a prioritized list
of additional airside facilities, general aviation
facilities, parking supply, passenger facilities, and
non -aeronautical property development in the
vicinity of the airport to support the anticipated
20-year growth at the Airport. The TSP supports
continued coordination with the City of Redmond
and ODOT to maintain safe and efficient
connections to the airport for Deschutes County
residents and visitors.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
BRIDGES
The County regularly reviews the structural
ratings of its bridges and addresses changes to
the bridges as funding and other opportunities
arise. The need for changes to existing bridge
locations within the County will be addressed
throughout the 20-year period of the TSP and
incorporated as part of County budgeting
and partner agency funding discussions, as
appropriate.
VEHICULAR PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
The County uses motor vehicle Level of Service
(LOS) standards to evaluate acceptable vehicular
performance on its road system. LOS standards
are presented as grades A (free flow traffic
conditions) to F (congested traffic conditions).
ODOT uses mobility targets based on volume to
capacity (V/C) ratios as defined in the OHP for
planning evaluations of existing facilities and in
the Highway Design Manual (HDM) for design of
future facilities to evaluate acceptable vehicular
performance on state facilities. As V/C ratios
approach 1.0, traffic congestion increases.
In some cases, it may not be possible or desirable
to meet the designated mobility target or LOS
standards. In those cases, an alternative mix
of strategies such as land use, transportation
demand management, safety improvements or
increased use of active modes may be applied.
The County roadways and intersections are
subject to LOS "D" whereas ODOT highways and
intersections are evaluated using the applicable
mobility targets in the Oregon Highway Plan
(OHP). Within the urban areas of the County,
each city's standards apply to their streets and
intersections.
30
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
This Chapter presents a list of prioritized
transportation investments intended to serve
the County in the future. These investments
were identified and prioritized based on
feedback obtained from County residents,
partner agency staff and by technical analyses
of roadways, intersections, bike facilities, transit,
walking routes, and transportation safety.
Many of the identified projects help to support
plans adopted by the local cities, the Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT), other
County planning efforts, the Transportation
Safety Action Plan (TSAP) and/or local refinement
and facility plans. For planning purposes and
the County's future considerations related to
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the
prioritized investments have been categorized
as high, medium or low. Each of the identified
investments have associated cost estimates.
The transportation investments are organized
into the following categories for implementation
based on complexity, likely availability of funding,
and assessment of need:
• Intersection changes;
• Roadway segments, including changes to
functional classification;
• ODOT intersections and roadways;
• Pedestrian facilities;
• Bicycle facilities;
• Bridges;
• Federal Land Access Program (FLAP) roads;
• Transit; and,
• Safety.
Some projects may be accelerated and others
postponed due to changing conditions, funding
availability, public input, or more detailed study
performed during programming and budgeting
processes. Further, project design details may
change before construction commences as
public input, available funding, and unique site
conditions are taken into consideration. Projects
identified herein may be funded through a variety
of sources including federal, state, county or
local transportation funds, system development
charges (SDCs), through partnerships with private
developers, or a combination of these sources.
In addition, as part of TSP implementation, the
County will continue to coordinate with ODOT
and the local communities regarding project
prioritization, funding and construction.
PROJECT COSTS
The estimated construction costs are provided in
the subsequent tables. These costs are order -of -
magnitude (e.g., planning -level) estimates that
account for right-of-way, design engineering, and
construction and generally include a 30 percent
contingency factor . The costs were calculated
for each project using the methodology and
procedures recommended by the American
Association of Cost Engineers (Class 5 estimates).
All costs are rounded to the nearest $100,000
and provided in 2021 dollars. The detailed costs
include all estimation assumptions as well as any
deviations related to unique topographic, right-
of-way, or other constraints.
Where applicable, cost estimates include
anticipated project funding that would provide
bicycle or pedestrian facilities, including usable
shoulder space.
Costs for individual transit corridors are not
provided. The County and Cascades East Transit
(CET) will continue to collaborate on capital
improvements and strategic policies that can
help implement more robust transit service
throughout the County.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
INTERSECTION CHANGES
As discussed in Chapter 4, the needs assessment
at intersections focused on both vehicular
capacity as well as potential geometry changes
identified by the Project Advisory Committee,
public input, and those identified through the
TSAP.
The TSP is not inclusive of all of the intersection
projects that the County will pursue over the
next 20 years. Rather, these have been identified
as projects that the County can pursue to
strategically improve the operational efficiency
of specific intersections and important roadways.
These projects can enhance system operations
and can be completed as opportunities arise. In
all cases, the County will review the appropriate
intersection control options at the time of project
development and delivery. The projects are
illustrated in Figure 5-1 and in Table 5-1.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
61,
County Intersection Project
O
O
ri
oMN S3NV"130VDSVD
HUN7IN
<P
FREDERICK BUTTE EID
Gl 000 BUTTE RD
3,
0
aD ylwwnS aan\a
I V Si
0
Od oVH VN1N0
CDNSTEA° RD
I
•
!:I GMGOVER,
In
a
Figure 5-1 — Intersection Changes
0
Table 5-1. Intersection Changes and Associated Cost Estimates
ID
Road 1
Road 2
Project
Description
Roundabout
Priority
High
Cost Estimate
$2,500,000
Bike/Ped
Component
of Cost
-
CI-1
Powell Butte Hwy
Butler Market Rd
CI-2
S Century Dr
Spring River Rd
Roundabout
High
$2,200,000
$200,000
CI-3
Huntington Rd
South Century Dr
Roundabout
High
$2,000,000
-
CI-4
NE 5th St
O'Neil Hwy
Realignment
High
$130,000
-
CI-5
Burgess Rd
Day Rd
Signal
High
$800,000
$100,000
CI-6
Coyner Rd
Northwest Way
Left Turn Lanes
(Northwest Way
Only)
High
$400,000
-
CI-7
NW Lower Bridge
Way
NW 43rd St
Realignment/
Left Turn Lane
or Roundabout
High
$3,500,000
$200,000
CI-8
S Century Dr
Vandervert Rd
Roundabout
Medium
$2,100,000
-
CI-9
NW 43rd St
NW Chinook Dr/
Realignment,
Left Turn Lane
Medium
$700,000
-
CI-10
Graystone Ln
Pleasant Ridge Rd
Reali nment
Left Turn Lane
Medium
$2,700,000
-
CI-11
Deschutes Market Rd
Graystone Ln
Signal With
Turn Lanes
Medium
$2,300,000
-
CI-12
Venture Ln
S Century Dr
Roundabout Or
Realignment
Medium
$2,100,000
-
CI-13
S Canal Blvd
McVey Ave
Realignment
Medium
$400,000
-
CI-14
Cinder Butte Rd
Cheyenne Rd
Realignment
Medium
$200,000
-
CI-15
Johnson Rd
Tyler Rd
Realignment
Medium
$600,000
-
CI-16
Cline Falls Hwy
Cook Ave/Tumalo
Rd
Roundabout Or
Realignment
Medium
$1,800,000
$200,000
CI-17
S Canal Blvd
SW Young Ave
Realignment
Medium
$300,000
-
CI-18
Baker Rd
Cinder Butte Rd
Intersection
Improvements
Medium
$1,200,000
-
CI-19
NW Lower Bridge
Way
NW 19th St
Turn Lanes/
Realignment
Medium
$500,000
-
CI-20
Old Bend Redmond
Hwy
Swalley Rd/Kiowa
Dr
Realignment
Low
$200,000
CI-21
NW LoWayBridge
NW 31st St
Turn Lanes
Low
$500,000
-
CI-22
Baker Rd
Brookswood Blvd
Signal/Turn
Lanes
Low
$1,400,000
$100,000
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
ROADWAY CHANGES
As discussed in Chapter 4, the needs assessment
identified strategic roadway corridors where
vehicular capacity and/or changes to the roadway
characteristics may be needed to help support
future growth and economic development in
the region as well as to enhance the safety of
all users. The identified projects also can help
to strength connections between areas of the
County and to other areas in Central Oregon.
These projects are illustrated in Figure 5-2
and Table 5-2. The projects identified will be
implemented over time to reflect changing needs
for the various users of the transportation system
and economic development opportunities.
In reviewing the prioritized list, it is helpful to
note that many existing roadways within the
County area are not built to current County
standards and that not all roadways within the
County will be rebuilt to match these standards
over the next 20 years. It is also important to
note that changes to existing roadways (beyond
those identified in the TSP) may be required
as part of future land use approvals consistent
with the roadway functional classification
requirements.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
35
V
C
V7 N
co 1p
iz
O
),MH S3NV'130VDSVO
z
D
.G5RdNG"'r .`I
•
»0 SIWv1nS a3rla
IV S3
OH DOA VI -WO
Gii151t5O RD
0,3
J 55151 ST SW 58TH ST
STOOKE? RD
O
NE NL`GUS WA
FS 1S
G1'+ PSRD Sl ..
cm
SISI ST
SERD ST
7,514
15
30.11140t�
0
o
WE STH S.
51 ISR& ST
NE -1S1 ST
E tST ST
NW 43RD ST
sa6uegD Aempeoa — Z-S e.in6ij
Table 5-2. Roadway Changes and Associated Cost Estimates
ID
Road
Begin
End
Rodgers Rd
Project
Description
New Road
Priority
High
Cost
Estimate
$1,600,000
Bike/Ped
Component
of Cost
$500,000
CC-1
Hunnell Rd
Loco Rd
CC-2
Hunnell Rd
Rodgers Rd
Tumalo Rd
Reconstruction/
Pave
High
$3,900,000
$1,200,000
CC-3
Smith Rock Way
Highway 97
Railroad
Crossing/UGB
Terrebonne
Widen &
Overlay
High
$600,000
$200,000
CC-4
NW Lower Bridge
Way
43rd St
Holmes Rd
Widen &
Overlay
Medium
$8,900,000
$3,500,000
CC-5
Rickard Rd
Knott
Rd/27th St
Bozeman Trail
Widening
Medium
$2,300,000
$700,000
CC-6
Sunrise Ln
300' North Of
Shady Ln
Burgess Rd
County Standard
Improvement
Medium
$1,300,000
$400,000
CC-7
N. Canal Blvd
Redmond
City Limits
O'Neil Hwy
Widen &
Overlay
Medium
$700,000
$200,000
CC-8
61st St
S. Canal Blvd
Hwy 97
Widen &
Overlay
Medium
$1,800,000
$600,000
CC-9
Tumalo Reservoir
Rd
OB Riley Rd
Collins Rd
Widen &
Overlay
Medium
$5,300,000
$1,600,000
CC-10
NW 19th St
NW Lower
Bridge Way
NW Odem
Ave
County Standard
Improvement
Medium
$2,700,000
$800,000
CC-11
NW Odem Ave
NW 19th St
Hwy 97
County Standard
Improvement
Medium
$1,100,000
$300,000
CC-12
SW Helmholtz
Way
OR 126
Antler Ave
Widen &
Overlay
Medium
$900,000
$300,000
CC-13
NE 1st St, Ne
Knickerbocker
Ave, And Ne 5th
St
O'Neil Hwy
Smith Rock
Way
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$3,400,000
$1,000,000
CC-14
NW Eby Ave, Ne
5th St, Ne Cayuse
Ave, And Ne 9th
St
US97
Ne Wilcox Rd
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$1,700,000
$500,000
CC-15
Whittier Dr, Wolf
St, And Shawnee
Circle
Whittier
Dr - End
of County
Maintenance
Lazy River Dr
County Standard
Improvement
Low
$2,600,000
$800,000
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
37
ID
Road
Begin
End
Stage Stop Dr
(@Browning
Dr/Pitch Ct)
Project
Description
County Standard
p
Priority
Low
Cost
Estimate
$1,300,000
Bike/Ped
Component
of Cost
$400,000
CC-16
Stellar Dr, Upland
Dr,
Rd, Winchester Dr,
BrowningDr
Stellar Dr End
of County
Maintenance
(@Milky Way)
CC-17
SW 19th St
End Of
Pavement —
SW 19th St
US97 (In the
Vicinity of SW
Quarry Ave)
Illustrative
Roadway
Extension.
May require
statewide
planning goals
exceptions
prior to
implementation
To be deter-
mined
$8,600,000
$2,600,000
CC-18
Cooley Rd
Urban
Growth
Boundary
Deschutes
Market Rd
Roadway
Extension
Low
$2,900,000
$900,000
CC-19
6th St
Masten Rd
6th St End
Of County
Maintenance
Roadway
Extension
Low
$3,800,000
$1,100,000
CC-20
Foster Rd
South
Century Dr
La Pine State
Rec. Rd
County Standard
Improvement/
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$4,100,000
$1,200,000
CC-21
Burgess Rd
Day Rd
Huntington
Rd
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$1,900,000
$600,000
CC-22
5th St (La Pine)
Amber Ln
La Pine State
Rec. Rd
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$800,000
$200,000
CC-23
W Antler Ave
NW 35th St
NW
Helmholtz
Way
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$400,000
$100,000
CC-24
O'Neil Hwy
N Canal Blvd
Highway 97
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$1,100,000
$300,000
CC-25
Gosney Rd
US 20
Canal, 1 Mile
South of
Us20
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$2,800,000
$800,000
CC-26
31st St
NW
Sedgewick
NW Lower
Bridge Way
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$1,000,000
$300,000
CC-27
NW Almeter Way
Northwest
Wa y
NW
Sedgewick
Ave
Widen &
Overla y
Low
$500,000
$200,000
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
ID
Road
Begin
End
T
Reservoir Rd
Project
Description
Widen &
Overlay
.
Priority
Low
Cost
Estimate
$1,300,000
Bike/Ped
Component
of Cost
$400,000
CC-28
Bailey Rd
US 20
CC-29
Bear Creek Rd
City Limits
US 20
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$3,200,000
$1,000,000
CC-30
Cinder Butte Rd
Baker Rd
Minnetonka
Ln
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$1,300,000
$400,000
CC-31
NW Helmholtz
Way
Maple Ave
NW Coyner
Ave
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$2,500,000
$700,000
CC-32
Huntington Rd
South
Century Dr
Burgess Rd
Widen &
Overlay,
Excluding
Portion from
Riverview Dr to
Riverview Dr
Low
$6,600,000
$2,000,000
CC-33
SW Wickiup Ave
SW
Helmholtz
Way
SW 58th St
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$600,000
$200,000
CC 34
4th St
(Terrebonne)
Majestic Rock
Dr
F Ave
County Standard
Improvement
Low
$200,000
$100,000
CC-35
F Ave
(Terrebonne)
4th St
5th St
County Standard
Improvement
Low
$100,000
-
CC-36
5th St
(Terrebonne)
F Ave
Central Ave
County Standard
Improvement
Low
$300,000
$100,000
CC-37
H Ave
(Terrebonne)
11th St
12th St
County Standard
Improvement
Low
$200,000
$100,000
CC-38
Amber Ln
5th St
Day Rd
Realignment
Low
$300,000
$100,000
CC-39
Day Rd
Amber Ln
Burgess Rd
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$3,000,000
$900,000
CC-40
NW Sedgewick
Ave
NW 19th Ave
NW Almeter
Way
Widen &
Overlay
Low
$1,000,000
$300,000
In addition to the roadway changes, the County
is proposing changes to the existing functional
classification system based on review by County
staff, input from stakeholders, and coordination
with partner agencies. These changes will occur as
part of TSP implementation. These recommended
changes are shown in Figure 5-3 and Tall 5-3.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
4,0
0 71
a a
-6; c
a -6;
>
CD
Functional Class Downgrade
apekdn ssen ieuoipund
1
v •/-
5311V130V3SVO
OFF EV
TRFOERICV BUTTE
I
k.
SiO0i,EV IRD
BOUNDARY- RD
'I I I
1111-71
0,663
-1÷1
L'R',' ',C.,,,,, • ,';',,
a - I ...1_
•-• HUNTINGTON.RA-3
c .
.......,....tt
. ,
-MTH
0
7.31iD S1
,I=Z2f:LE.,12(
-‘e>44
0. Viin ST
00
HISfr
—
c
010
.6)
S, 43. SI
CD
Figure 5-3 - Functional Classification Changes
Table 5-3. Changes to the Functional Classification Designations
ID
Road
Begin
End
NW
Chinook
Ave
Functional
Current
Collector
Classification
Proposed
Arterial
Comments
One of the main roads NW
of Terrebonne, main access
to Crooked River Ranch, 1/2
access roads to CRR
1
43rd St
NW Lower
Bridge Way
2
NW Maple
Ave
NW
Helmholtz
Way
NW 59th St
Arterial
Collector
Possible database error,
updating to match county
mapping
3
NW Maple
Ave
NW 35th St
NW
Helmholtz
Way
N/A
Arterial
Future connection; called out
in the city of Redmond tsp;
from tsp- "proposed 3 lane
arterial to improve connectivity
between and within existing
neighborhoods, employment,
and commercial areas, to
provide connections to newly
developed or developing
areas, and to provide
alternative travel routes for all
models to existing streets"
4
SW Quarry
Ave
US97
S Canal Blvd
Local
Collector
Improve connection to canal
which is an arterial road that
runs parallel to US97, key road
segment in connection to
north Tumalo area from US97,
2 lane road with narrow gravel
shoulders
5
Graystone Ln
Deschutes
Market Rd
Pleasant
Ridge Rd
Collector
Arterial
1275' segment that is key in
the eastern parallel roads to
US97, Connection for US97
Access from Tumalo Rd/
Deschutes market road
6
Pleasant
Ridge Rd
Graystone
Ln
US97
Collector
Arterial
600' segment that is key in
connection for US97 Access
from Tumalo Rd/Deschutes
market road
7
19th St
Deschutes
Market Rd
Morrill Rd
Collector
Local
1750' segment that connects
to rural farmland area NE
of Bend, no major traffic
generators
8
Morrill Rd
19th St
McGrath Rd
Collector
Local
1675' segment that connects
to rural farmland and hiking
area NE of Bend, no major
traffic generators, the rest of
Morrill Rd is local
Deschutes. County Transportation. System Plan
41
ID
Road
Begin
Morrill Rd
End
End
Functional
Current
Collector
Classification
Proposed
Local
Comments
Road that connects to rural
farmland area NE of Bend, no
major traffic generators
9
McGrath Rd
10
Dale Rd
Deschutes
Market Rd
McGrath Rd
Local
Collector
4,180' segment that connects
rural land to Deschutes Market
Rd
11
George
Millic r Rd
US 20
County Line
Local
Arterial
Possible database error,
updating to match county
mapping
12
Navajo Rd
Cinder
Butte Rd
End
Local
Collector
Traffic from homes, driveways
every 50-100', 1' paved
shoulder, connects to cinder
butte road which is a collector
13
Minnetonka
Ln
Cinder
Butte Rd
Cherokee
Dr
Local
Collector
Traffic from homes, driveways
every 50-100', no paved
shoulder, connects to cinder
butte road which is a collector
14
Cherokee Dr
Minnetonka
Ln
Navajo Rd
Local
Collector
Traffic from homes, driveways
every 50-100', 1' paved
shoulder, connects to
Minnetonka Lane and Navajo
road that are being upgraded
as well
15
McClain Dr
City Limits
Sage
Steppe Dr
Local
Collector
Possible database error,
updating to match county
mapping
16
Sage Steppe
Dr
McClain Dr
City Limits
Local
Collector
1580' segment in new
developed area, continues
McClain drive proposed
upgrade of collector
17
S Century Dr
Spring
River Rd
Deschutes
River Xing
Collector
Arterial
Connection to the
communities of Three
Rivers, Caldera Springs, and
Crosswater
18
Huntington Rd
S Century
Dr
City Limits
Collector
Arterial
Connection between La Pine,
Three Rivers, and Sunrise;
gravel shoulder and paved
shoulder 0'-2'
19
Burgess Rd
Day Rd
Sunrise Blvd
Collector
Arterial
Possible database error,
updating to match county
mapping
20
Riverview Dr
Huntington
Rd
Huntington
Rd
Collector
Local
Parallel to Huntington Road,
rural connections to river and
homes, curvy road
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
ID
Road
Begin
End
Day Rd
Classification
Proposed
Collector
Comments
Connection to many homes,
driveways every 50-300',
gravel shoulders, paved
shoulders 0-2'
Functional.
Current `
Local
21
Sunrise Blvd
Burgess Rd
22
Whittier Dr
La Pine
State Rec.
Rd
Wolf St
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
La Pine state park from Three
Rivers and other communities
to the north; 1/2 is a gravel
road, other half is paved with
no striping
23
Wolf St
Whittier Dr
Shawnee
Circle
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
La Pine state park from Three
Rivers and other communities
to the north; gravel road
24
Shawnee
Circle
Wolf St
Lazy River
Dr
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
La Pine state park from Three
Rivers and other communities
to the north; gravel road
25
Lazy River Dr
Shawnee
Circle
S Century
Dr
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
La Pine state park from Three
Rivers and other communities
to the north
26
Bonanza Ln
S Century
Dr
Stage Stop
Dr
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes and
big river group campground
27
Stage Stop
Dr
Bonanza Ln
Browning
Dr
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
28
Browning Dr
Stage Stop
Dr
Winchester
Dr
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
29
Winchester Dr
Browning
Dr
Savage Dr
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
30
Savage Dr
Winchester
Dr
Upland Rd
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
31
Upland Rd
Savage Dr
Milky Way
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
32
Milky Way
Stellar Dr
Solar Dr
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
33
Solar Dr
Milky Way
Spring River
Rd
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
34
Stellar Dr
Milky Way
Spring River
Rd
Local
Collector
Enhance connection route to
west Three Rivers homes
Deschutes County Transportation System, Plan
ODOT Intersections and Roadways
Future changes to ODOT intersections and
roadways within the County have been identified
in previously adopted and/or acknowledged
transportation plans. ODOT and County staff
prioritized the list of changes for inclusion in
the TSP. These are shown in Figure 5-4 and
Table 5-4. In addition to this list, the County will
continue to partner with ODOT to monitor and
identify future projects that help to address the
needs of local, regional and statewide travel.
As the road authority for projects on the state
highway system, the timing, need, and funding
for projects will be directed by ODOT rules and
regulations. In some cases, the County may
partner with ODOT on implementation whereas
in others, the projects will be planned, designed
and constructed by ODOT.
44
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
sloafald Aemg6!H alels
:S uo6al0'1ocoolou
hMH 93NVl30VDSV3
n. �a
ti 5y
z o�
oi7 DAY RD
cw
ro HUpr
D3 S.
FREDEPoCI< SLIT IC RD
GIASS cunt
08 NDD;tiVR
uzngo
ao ilwvmsaana
VA Si
Oa iVH VWIND
YRIYSIDAD RD
12D
COf EY RD
I.IONTGOASII, RD
STOOKE}' RD
•b
sa6ueo Joao - 7 5 aa16!A
1 <n
Table 5-4. ODOT Intersections Changes and Associated Cost Estimates
ID
Road
1
Road
2
Desc.
Notes
ODOT project
programmed for
2023
Priority
High
Cost
$11,000,000
County
Contribution
$9,100,000
Bike/Ped
Component
of County
Contribution
$1,800,000
S-1
US 20
Cook
Ave/O.B.
Riley Rd
Two Lane
Roundabout
S-2
US97
Lower
Bridge Way
Grade
Separated
Interchange
From US97
Interchange project
identified via
US97: Terrebonne/
Lower Bridge Way
improvement
project.
ODOT project
programmed for
2023.
High
$30,200,000
$10,000,000
$700,000
S-3
US97
Baker Road
To Lava
Butte
Implementation
Of Multiuse
Path
ODOT project
currently in design
phase
High
$3,000,000
-
S-4
OR
126
SW
Helmholtz
Way
Traffic Signal
or Intersection
Improvement
Coordinate with
city of Redmond &
ODOT on specific
project. Also
identified within
Redmond tsp.
Medium
$1,000,000
$500,000
$100,000
S-5
US 20
Fryrear Rd
Turn Lane
on Highway,
Realign
Intersection
identified within
Deschutes County
TSAP
Medium
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
-
S-6
US97
Deschutes
River
Woods
South
Interchange
Project
Interchange
This project
will provide a
grade separated
interchange on
US97 that will
connect the
Deschutes River
Woods subdivision
(west) and the High
Desert Museum
area (east). A future
refinement process
(interchange area
management
plan, or other)
will determine the
connection point to
the DRW. A grade
separation of the
BNSF Railroad will
also be required.
Low
$42,900,000
$10,000,000
-
46
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
ID
Road
Road
Desc.
Notes
The county will
coordinate with
ODOT and the city
of Redmond on the
appropriate county
involvement to
implement IAMP
projects.
Priority
Low
Cost
Multiple
Projects
County
ibution
Bike/Ped
Component
of County
Contribution
S-7
US97
Pershall-
O'Neil Hwy
Implement
Components of
the Interchange
Area
Management
Plan (IAMP)
Adopted for
This Area.
S-8
US97
Quarry Rd
Grade
Separated
Interchange
From US97
Illustrative Project.
Timing and need
to be further
refined. May
require statewide
planning goals
exceptions prior to
implementation.
Need for project
likely driven
by economic
development within
Redmond industrial
lands
To be deter -mined
$50,000,000
$5,000,000
-
S-9
US 20
Powell
Butte Hwy
Roundabout
Project timing and
need to be further
refined.
Low
$5,000,000
$500,000
-
S-10
US 20
Pinehurst
Rd
Turn Lane
on Highway,
Realign
Project timing and
need to be further
refined.
Low
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
-
S-11
US
20
Locust St
Roundabout
County
contribution to
ODOT/ city of
Sisters project
Low
$6,000,000
$1,000,000
-
S-12
US97
Baker
Road
Implement
Components
of The
Interchange
Area
Management
Plan (IAMP)
For This Area.
The county will
coordinate with
ODOT and the
city of Bend on
the appropriate
county
involvement to
implement IAMP
projects.
Low
Multiple
Projects
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
47
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Figure 5®5 and Tale 5®5 reflect priorities
for changes to the pedestrian system within
Terrebonne and Tumalo. In general, the sidewalks
identified in the TSP reflect providing sidewalks
between the residential areas and schools as
well as to provide connections to neighborhood
commercial areas in the two communities.
Other changes to the pedestrian system as
well as pedestrian crossing improvements may
be provided in the future based on project
development and design as well as funding
opportunities. The County may require sidewalk
construction as part of future land use actions
as well, consistent with the Development Code
requirements.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
Figure 5-5A - Pedestrian Facilities Improvements
0
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM PLAN
NW SEDGEWICK,\VE
Pedestrian Projects
.`..:NW ODEM AVE:d.
Parks
Water
Unincorporated Cities
CENTRAL AVE'
C AVE......
FOSS DR
NW. SM ITH.ROCK. WAY. .(
0 0.25Mites
Figure 5-5B
DOW Source. Deschutes; County
Pedestrian Facility Projects
Terrebonne , Oregon
Deschutes, Count . Trans•ortation S stem Plan
49
Figure 5-5B — Pedestrian Facilities Improvements
NIANSI OR1MION
SYSTEM PLAN
BILL MARTIN RD
JUMPER LN
GEGARIN"'.,
TUMALO RESERVOIR RD
ELDER LN
-SO PU T EAI.1 LIJ".
EL DORADO TRL
RODEO OR
0
HIGH L1ON:ING LN - RIDGENOOD OR O 2
Pedestrian Projects Parks
Water
Unincorporated Cities
BIRDSONG LN
- STURGEON RD
o
o`
a
05Miles
Figure 5-5A
50;,; . , ....
Deschutes ,Coto -It T.r"anseortation. S sten1 iPlan
Table 5-5. Pedestrian Facilities and Associated Cost Estimates
ID
Road
Begin
End
Cook Ave
Description
5' Sidewalk On Both
Sides
Cost
$300,000
Priority
High
BP-1
7th St (Tumalo)
US 20
BP-2
4th St (Tumalo)
Wood Ave
Bruce Ave
5' Sidewalks On
Both Sides
High
$300,000
BP-3
2nd St/Cook Ave
Sidewalks (SRTS-
Tumalo)
Tumalo
School
Cline
Falls/4th
Street
5' Sidewalks In
Areas Without
Medium
$1,700,000
BP 4
5th St
(Terrebonne)
B Ave
C Ave
5' Sidewalk On East
Side Only
Medium
$200,000
BP-5
B Ave
(Terrebonne)
5th St
6th St
5' Sidewalk, North
Side Only
Medium
$200,000
BP-6
5th St (Tumalo)
Wood Ave
Cook Ave
5' Sidewalks On
Both Sides
Medium
$500,000
BP-7
C Ave
(Terrebonne)
6th St
NW 19th St
5' Sidewalks On
Both Sides
Medium
$1,000,000
BP 8
C Ave
(Terrebonne)
US97
16th St
5' Sidewalk On
South Side Only
Low
$600,000
BP-9
11th St
(Terrebonne)
Central Ave
US97
5' Sidewalks On
Both Sides
Low
$1,100,000
BP-10
8th St (Tumalo)
Cook Ave
Riverview
Ave
5' Sidewalks On
Both Sides
Low
$400,000
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Deschutes County provides and maintains
useable shoulders along roadways for use by
people riding bikes though not all roadways
are currently improved to include such facilities.
The County has an aspirational bicycle route
system, referred to as County Bikeways, where
useable shoulders will be provided, as practical,
as part of ongoing maintenance and roadway
improvements projects. Facilities designated as
County Bikeways are shown in Figure 5-6.
Crossing improvements, though not specifically
identified in the TSP, may be provided when
bicycle facilities are constructed that cross
major roads. The need for and type of crossing
treatments as well as other facility changes will
be evaluated at the time of project development
and design. The County may provide such
facilities as standalone projects or in conjunction
with scheduled maintenance activities. At
the time the TSP was written, the County was
evaluating potential changes to the Development
Code requirements (as included in the County
Code Title 22 requirements) related to bicycle
facility requirements as part of land use actions.
Future changes to Title 22 will be considered as
part of TSP implementation.
In addition, as part of implementation of the TSP,
changes to the bicycle network will continue to
be informed as part of the County's Bicycle and
Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) activities. BPAC's
mission is "to promote and encourage safe
bicycling and walking as a significant means of
transportation in Deschutes County" and focuses
on both changes to the system as well as public
education and awareness and a review of safety
and funding needs as part of implementation of
potential projects.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan 51
As part of that coordination, Table 5-6 and
Table 5-7 identify regional bicycle connections
that have been developed and prioritized with
input from BPAC. Table 5-6 identifies routes that
would connect communities and serve broad
transportation functions, such as commuting,
recreation, or daily services. Table 5-7 identifies
routes that primarily provide connections to
recreational opportunities, which could also serve
to improve transportation mode choices available
to County residents and visitors.
Over time, strengthening the identified
connections will help to expand the overall
bicycle infrastructure within the County. Specific
routes, including roadways and projects needed
to support or develop these routes, have not yet
been identified nor has the funding to construct
and maintain these facilities. In the future, these
costs may be funded by the County and/or a
variety of agency partners, pending the actual
alignment and project elements identified.
The County will work with BPAC and agency
partners, including ODOT and local jurisdictions,
to advance development and implementation of
preferred routes as resources allow.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
AMH S3NV130VOSVO
5� I
"AOFf�TT FO
r REDERIO< 3UTTE RD
O
come; R, I
tvtii00M6RP i<0
si(eme)ne /I;unop — 9-5 aan6H
Finally, the County, by reference, will adopt
the Map 11 of the Bend Parks and Recreation
District's (BPRD's) Comprehensive Plan (2018)
identifying future trail connections to parks
within the County but outside the Bend (UGB)
as well as those within the Deschutes National
Forest. As noted in the BPRD plan, the trails have
been prioritized for implementation but the
actual alignments in the map are approximate
and subject to future easement/user agreements
to enable trail construction, availability of
funding, and securing agreements from affected
property owners for trailheads and parking areas.
Table 5-6. Bicycle Route Community Connections
As part of TSP implementation, the County will
coordinate with BPRD on the planning for and
timing of new trails. It is important to note that
not all County roadways are currently or will
be designed to provide roadside parking for
trailhead users. The County will work with BPRD
to identify appropriate locations in the future to
provide safe access for trail users as well as to
roadway users not accessing the parks/trails.
Description
Community Connection
Priority
High
Bend To Redmond
Various routes possible. Preferred
route alignment has not been
identified.
Bend To Sunriver
Route currently in design as a
multi -use path along US97 (project
s-3). Would connect bend, lava
lands, and Sunriver.
High
Bend To Sisters
Could include Bend to Tumalo
and/or Bend to Tumalo state park
connection, which is also a priority
route, and would likely include
county and ODOT facilities. Future
coordination will be required.
Additional Sisters to Tumalo
connection may be necessary if
Bend to Sisters route does not
include the Tumalo community.
High
Redmond To Sisters
Route could occur adjacent to or
within ODOT right-of-way (or 126)
High
Redmond To Terrebonne
Route would likely occur adjacent
to or within ODOT right-of-way
(US97)
High
Redmond To Tumalo
Route may overlap with other
route development, such as Bend
to Sisters or possible Redmond to
Sisters.
High
Sisters To Terrebonne & Smith Rock
State Park
Route is currently part of a scenic
bikeway. Improvements to the
existing route, including improved
crossings, are needed.
High
Deschutes County. Transportation System Plan
Community Connection
Priority
High
Description
Significant prior planning which
assumed a multi -use path parallel
to US 20.
Sisters To Black Butte Ranch
Deschutes River Woods to East
Side of Bend
Route would connect area south
of Bend to new development areas
and recreational opportunities
within or near southeast bend.
Route could benefit from trail
construction within future SE Bend
developments.
Medium
Sunriver To La Pine
ODOT is currently in the planning
stages to identify preferred route
location.
Medium
Bend To Prineville
Route could utilize state highways
and/or county roads. Coordination
with ODOT and crook county will
be required.
Low
Redmond To Powell Butte &
Prineville
Route could utilize state highways
and/or county roads. Coordination
with ODOT and crook county will
be required.
Low
Black Butte Ranch to Camp
Sherman
Route would require coordination
with Forest Service.
Low
Table 5-7. Bicycle Route Recreation Connections
Description
Various routes possible. Preferred route alignment has not been
identified.
Priority
High
Community Connection
Bend To Redmond
Bend To Sunriver
Route currently in design as a multi -use path along US97
(project s-3). Would connect Bend, Lava Lands, and Sunriver.
High
Bend To Sisters
Could include Bend to Tumalo and/or Bend to Tumalo state
park connection, which is also a priority route, and would likely
include county and ODOT facilities. Future coordination will be
required.
Additional Sisters to Tumalo connection may be necessary if
Bend to Sisters route does not include the Tumalo community.
High
Redmond To Sisters
Route could occur adjacent to or within ODOT right-of-way (or
1Redmond
High
To Terrebonne
Route would likely occur adjacent to or within ODOT right -of-
way (US97)
High
Redmond To Tumalo
Route may overlap with other route development, such as Bend
to Sisters or possible Redmond to Sisters.
High
Sisters To Terrebonne &
Smith Rock State Park
Route is currently part of a scenic bikeway. Improvements to the
existing route, including improved crossings, are needed.
High
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
Community Connection
Description
Significant prior planning which assumed a multi -use path
parallel to US 20.
Priority
High
Sisters To Black Butte Ranch
Deschutes River Woods to
East Side of Bend
Route would connect area south of Bend to new development
areas and recreational opportunities within or near southeast
bend. Route could benefit from trail construction within future
SE Bend developments.
Medium
Sunriver To La Pine
ODOT is currently in the planning stages to identify preferred
route location.
Medium
Bend To Prineville
Route could utilize state highways and/or county roads.
Coordination with ODOT and crook county will be required.
Low
Redmond To Powell Butte &
Prineville
Route could utilize state highways and/or county roads.
Coordination with ODOT and crook county will be required.
Low
Black Butte Ranch to Camp
Sherman
Route would require coordination with Forest Service.
Low
BRIDGES
In 2020, the majority of the County's bridges
were rated as being structurally sufficient. The
County regularly reviews the structural ratings of
its bridges and makes changes as funding and
other opportunities arise. Projects to address
county bridge priorities are shown in Figure 5-7
and Table 5-8. These projects represent the
County's current priorities but do not encapsulate
all the bridges that may be modified over time.
56
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
•
a
'bp}
0
0
2
n00 sa:nyoca
•
0
nac
N' it
UN7/NG
z
REDERIC.. BUTTE RD
0
Oil WI-1'0W°
GR))STE\O 0)
CO, FEY RD
Sl OC.E, RD
spafoad a6p98 L-5 a.m6ij
Table 5-8. Bridge Projects and Associated Cost Estimates
ID
Road
Location
North Unit
Canal
Priority
High
Cost
$1,000,000
Description
Replacement
BR-1
Smith Rock Way
BR-2
Gribbling Rd
Central Oregon
Canal
Replacement
High
$900,000
BR-3
Hamehook Rd
-
Replacement
High
$1,100,000
BR-4
S Century Dr
BNSF RR
Rehabilitation
High
$2,700,000
BR-5
Wilcox Ave
-
Removal
Medium
$200,000
BR-6
Wilcox Ave
-
Removal
Medium
$100,000
BR-7
Burgess Rd
-
Replacement
Medium
$2,100,000
BR-8
Cottonwood Dr
BNSF RR
Replacement
Low
$3,800,000
BR-9
Spring River Rd
Deschutes River
Rehabilitation
Low
$400,000
BR-10
Old Deschutes
Rd
Pilot Butte
Canal
Replacement
Low
$400,000
BR-11
Sisemore Rd
-
Replacement
Low
$600,000
BR-12
Camp Polk Rd
-
Replacement
Low
$1,400,000
BR-13
Wilcox Ave
-
New Bridge
Low
$1,300,000
FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS
PROGRAM ROADWAYS
The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) was
established to "improve transportation facilities
that provide access to, are adjacent to, or are
located within Federal lands." This program is
intended to provide supplemental funding to be
used in combination with State and County funds
for public roads, transit, and other transportation
facilities. In particular, FLAP helps prioritize
funding for "high -use recreation sites and
economic generators." FLAP is funded through
the Federal Highway Trust Fund and its allocation
is based on road mileage, bridges, land area and
number of visits to the lands.
FLAP provides funding opportunities to help the
County deliver capital projects to increase access
to Federal Lands. In addition, FLAP is a funding
tool to help the County fund maintenance of
existing roads that provide access to Federal
Lands, such as those designated as Forest
Highways and other roads that provide similar
access.
Figure 5-8 and Table 5-9 identify the County's
current priorities for future FLAP -funded projects.
As part of TSP implementation, the County will
continue to coordinate with all of the federal
agencies, BPRD, Cascades East Transit, and ODOT
on the request for future FLAP -funded projects.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan 58
Federal Land Access Projets
AMN 53NV'130V SVSV3
FS 15
spafoad dV1I — 8-S ean6ij
.I
O,
to
T
A
W
N
C•
China Hat Rd
Burgess Rd
Darlene Way
Cascade Lakes Hwy
Cascade Lakes Hwy
Buckhorn Rd
Road
Three Creeks Rd
Knott Rd
Sunrise Ct
A
O
N
D
d
tl
Elk Lake
Milepost 21.98
Lower Bridge Way
Begin
Sisters City Limits
One Mile South of Knott Rd at
The Deschutes National Forest
Boundary
South Century Dr
County Line
5 Century Dr
Elk Lake
0
70
N
a,
End
Forest Service Boundary
Widen & overlay
Widen & overlay
County standard improvement of full-length Darlene Way; assumed no row
acquisition on existing alignment across BLM land
Widen & overlay; improve side slopes; increase horizontal sight distance; install
guardrail; install centerline rumble strips, post -mounted delineators and high -
type pavement markings; install shoulder rumble strips or edge line rumble strips;
possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or replacements; install left -
turn and right -turn lanes at major destinations
Widen & overlay; improve side slopes; increase horizontal sight distance; install
guardrail; install centerline rumble strips, post -mounted delineators and high -
type pavement markings; install shoulder rumble strips or edge line rumble strips;
possible structure adjustments and culvert extensions or replacements; install left -
turn and right -turn lanes at major destinations
Reconstruction/ pave
Description
3.7-mile-long segment scoped for widening, pavement rehabilitation, safety
improvements, and removal of BR #16060
Low
Low
0
Medium
Medium
o
O
,0O
Vi
to
O
O
Vi
O,
O
O
O
Hi
l0
0
0
O
ivO�
0
O
0
Vi
O
o
O
N
0
O
0
0
69
NJ'
o
0
0
0
0
Vi
-
0
o
0
64
A
CD 0
0
0
FA
w
0
0
0
M
N
A
0
o
0
,"
w
0
0
0
000'009$
uot;ngla3UOD
AtunoD
v+
0
0
w
�.,
0
0
A
0
0
va
V,
0
0
v>
-.I
0
0
v+
A
0
0
n ;n
m
N ., n 3 x
0 a,
Q p,O
0 �'�'Zm'p„'
'c'.-,
Table 5-9. FLAP Roadways and Associated Cost Estimates
TRANSIT
By reference, the County will adopt the Cascade
East Transit (CET) Master Plan. This Master Plan
has a number of projects that can help increase
service to the unincorporated areas of the
County as well as to the High Desert Museum
and Lava Lands Visitor Center. As part of TSP
implementation, the County will continue to
partner with CET to identify collaborative funding
sources and future service enhancements.
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
ACTION PLAN PROJECTS
The County's 2019 Transportation Safety Action
Plan (TSAP) provides a range of projects, policies,
and programs to address identified safety needs
Table 5-10. TSAP Priority Locations & Status
within the unincorporated areas of the County.
The County will adopt the TSAP, by reference, as
part of the updated TSP.
The top sites for safety improvements in
unincorporated Deschutes County identified
through the TSAP are shown in Table 5-10.
This table also includes projects that have been
identified to address these needs and relevant
status. As part of TSP implementation, the
County will continue to identify future project
refinements, as needed, monitor the timing of
intersection changes at these locations, and
seek funding opportunities and/or the potential
to combine safety -related projects with other
project development within the County.
Project Identified?
Roundabout
Status
Project Complete
Intersection
US 20/Ward Rd/Hamby Rd
US97/Vandevert Rd
Intersection Improvement
Project Complete
US 20/Fryrear Rd
Turn Lane on Highway, Realign
Fryrear Road (Project SI-5)
County to Coordinate with ODOT
on Future Project Refinement.
Burgess Rd/Day Rd/Pine Forest Dr
Turn -Lanes
Project Complete
Bear Creek Rd/Ward Rd
None
County to Conduct Future Project
Refinement.
Alfalfa Market Rd/Dodds Rd
None
County to Conduct Future Project
Refinement.
US 20/Old Bend Redmond Hwy
Roundabout
ODOT Project Programmed for
2023
US 20/OB Riley Rd/Cook Ave
Roundabout
ODOT Project Programmed for
2023
US97/61st St
Improved as Part of ODOT US97
Bend to Redmond Project
Project Complete
US97/11th St/Lower Bridge Way
Part Of US97: Terrebonne/Lower
Bridge Way Improvements
ODOT Project Programmed for
2023
61st St/Quarry Ave/Canal Blvd
Improved as Part of ODOT US97
Bend to Redmond Project
Project Complete
Northwest Way/Coyner Ave
Add Turn Lanes
Project Identified in Deschutes
County TSP.
Alfalfa Market Rd/Walker Rd
None
County to Conduct Future Project
Refinement.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
61
Project Identified?
Part Of US97: Terrebonne/Lower
Bridge Way Improvements
Status
ODOT Project Programmed for
2024
Intersection
US97/Smith Rock Way/B Ave
Deschutes Market Rd/Hamehook
Rd
Roundabout
County Project Programed for 2023
US97/Burgess Rd
Traffic Signal
Project Identified in Wickiup
Junction Refinement Plan. County
to Coordinate with City of La
Pine and ODOT on Future Project
Refinement and Implementation.
US 20/Hawks Beard (Black Butte
Ranch)
None
County to Coordinate with ODOT
on Future Project Refinement.
El Camino Lane/Helmholtz Way
None
County to Conduct Future Project
Refinement.
S Canal Blvd/Helmholtz Way
Add Turn Lanes
Project Complete
Dickey Rd/Nelson Rd
None
County to Conduct Future Project
Refinement.
US97/Galloway Ave
None
County to Coordinate with ODOT
on Future Project Refinement.
Butler Market Rd/Powell Butte Hwy
Roundabout
Programmed For 2023
Construction
Butler Market Rd/Hamby Rd
None
County to Conduct Future Project
Refinement.
Butler Market Rd/Hamehook Rd
None
Intersection Now Under City of
Bend Jurisdiction
Baker Rd/Cinder Butte Rd
Intersection Improvement
Project Identified in Deschutes
County TSP.
S Century Dr/Huntington Rd
Roundabout
Project Identified in Deschutes
County TSP.
Cline Falls Rd/Coopers Hawk Dr/
Falcon Crest Dr
None
County to Conduct Future Project
Refinement.
Lower Bridge Way/19th St
Turn Lanes/Realignment (Project
C-18)
Project Identified in Deschutes
County TSP.
Lower Bridge Way/31st St
Turn Lanes (Project C-20)
Project Identified in Deschutes
County TSP.
Lower Bridge Way/43rd St
Included in Future Roadway
Improvement Project (Project CC-4)
Project Identified in Deschutes
County TSP.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
Deschutes County receives transportation
funding via a variety of state, federal, and local
sources. Resources are initially budgeted to meet
maintenance and operation standards; resources
exceeding these needs are directed to the Road
Department's Capital Fund to fund Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) projects.
This Chapter provides a description of funding
sources and a projection of capital resources
available to fund CIP projects.
FUNDING S"!URCES
State Highway Fund
The State Highway Fund (SHF) is managed by the
State (ODOT) and contains revenue generated
from taxes on motor fuels (gas and diesel),
taxes on heavy trucks (including weight -mile tax
and truck registrations), and driver/vehicle fees
(license, title and registration).
Counties receive approximately 30% of SHF net
revenue (whereas ODOT receives 50% and cities,
20%). Revenue increases to the SHF occur at
irregular intervals at the discretion of the Oregon
Legislature.
Within the 20-year horizon of the TSP/CIP,
the State Highway Fund model will most likely
transition to a user -based fee structure to replace
the traditional fuel tax.
Federal Secure Rural Schools (SRS) and
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Program
Funding
The federal Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self Preservation Act (SRS) provides a federal
payment to counties and school districts to
offset the loss in timber revenue from federal
land that is no longer received by counties due
to environmental restrictions. Per federal code,
a specific portion of SRS is dedicated to county
road funding. In March 2023, the Deschutes
County Road Agency (DCRA) was formed as
an Intergovernmental Entity (per ORS 190) to
receive SRS funding from the State via the federal
government. Funds received by the DCRA will be
internally transferred to the Road Department for
expenditure.
Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) is a federal
payment to counties with significant federal land
holdings to partially offset the loss in tax revenue.
PILT funding is to be used for government
purposes and its allocation occurs at the
discretion of the Board of County Commissioners.
Historically, the Board has provided the Road
Department with a portion of PILT in recognition
of the significant reduction in SRS funding
(prior timber revenue) received by the Road
Department.
Federal Surface Transportation Block Grant
(STBG) Funding
The Surface Transportation Block Grant program
is a federal program which provides formulaic
allocations to states to invest in federal -aid
highways. The federal -aid system includes roads
classified as collector and above, which includes
county roads. A memorandum of understanding
between the Oregon Department of
Transportation, the League of Oregon Cities and
the Association of Oregon Counties establishes
a methodology for allocation of Oregon's
portion of the federal funding. Historically,
ODOT has operated a fund exchange program
for local government in which federal funding is
exchanged (90%) for state dollars to enable local
governments to deliver projects outside of the
federal process.
Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)
The Federal Lands Access Program is a federal
program administered by the Federal Highway
Administration for the purpose of improving
transportation facilities that provide access to,
are adjacent to, or are located within federal
lands. Given the significant amount of federal
land within Deschutes County, the Road
Department has historically fared well in this
competitive program for projects ranging from
chip seal, bridge replacement, overlay and
reconstruction efforts.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
System Development Charges (SDC)
System Development Charges are fees assessed
to new development (or redevelopment) to fund
capacity adding improvements necessary to
accommodate new growth within the County's
transportation system.
Routine State Grant Programs
The State of Oregon, via ODOT, provides grant
programs to fund various aspects of local
transportation systems. Primary State programs
include:
• Safe Routes to Schools
• Local Bridge Program
• All Roads Transportation Safety (ARTS)
Federal Grant Programs
The Federal government funds various
grant programs through occasional federal
transportation bills, most recently the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL). Primary federal programs
include:
• Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A);
• Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP);
• Rebuilding American Infrastructure
Sustainably and Equitably (RAISE);
• Infrastructure for Rebuilding American
(INFRA); and,
• Other programs.
Local Funding
• Due to statutory limitations and other
restrictions, it is difficult for counties to
generate transportation funding via local
sources. Noted restrictions include:
• Prohibition in franchise fees from utility
companies located in the public right-of-
way; and,
• Restriction in use of general fund tax dollars
for road purposes.
Notable funding sources, which require voter
approval, include:
• Local Fuel Tax;
• Local Registration Fee; and,
• Sales Tax.
Deschutes County does not have a local funding
source for transportation.
FUNDING PROJECTIONS - 20 YEAR
ESTI ATE
With transportation funding almost exclusively
derived from state and federal funding sources,
the nature of transportation funding can be very
cyclical in Oregon. The legislature has approved
fuel tax increases only four times since 1993. The
federal fuel tax has not increased since 1993.
The current state of transportation funding in
Deschutes County is stable due to the passage of
a phased -in 10-cent per gallon fuel tax approved
via HB 2017 in 2017. The last remaining phase of
the fuel tax will occur January 1, 2024 (2-cents
per gallon).
Counties in Oregon receive approximately
30% of the SHF; individual county distribution
is determined based upon the proportion of
registered vehicles in each county. In 2023,
Deschutes County received approximately 5.5%
of the portion of the SHF allocated to counties in
the state.
Prioritization of Expenditures
Based on the Road Department's hierarchy of
investment, funding for capital construction is a
function of the total resources available, less the
annual amount required to maintain and operate
the system based on existing maintenance
standards and operational levels -of -service.
Maintenance standards and operation levels -of -
service are derived from a combination of studies
(example, annual pavement maintenance and
budget options report), and operational policy
(example, snow and ice plan).
Figure -1 represents the prioritization of
expenditures for maintenance, operation and
capital expenditures as annually presented to the
County's Budget Committee.
Figure 6-1: Hierarchy of Expenditures and Investment
the
Capital Funding Estimate Assumptions
A projection of transportation funding resources
available for capital investment has been
prepared for the 20-year investment period of
the TSP and Capital Improvement Plan based on
the following assumptions:
1. Current maintenance and operational
standards remain in place.
2. The County's existing Road Moratorium
(Resolution 2009-118), which limits
acceptance of new road miles into the
County maintenance system, remains in
place.
3. Existing funding levels remain in place and
are occasionally adjusted legislatively to a
level that will roughly match inflation.
4. No significant additional local funding
mechanisms are developed or implemented.
5. State and Federal grant programs are
available at approximately the same
historical intervals and funding levels.
CAPITAL FUNDING ESTIMATE
A projection of transportation system revenues
and expenditures for a 20-year horizon has
been prepared with consideration to the noted
assumptions and prioritization (hierarchy of
expenditures and investment). For comparative
and project placement purposes, the estimated
available Capital Improvement Project revenue
has been calculated in 2023 value and estimated
across the High (0 to 5 years), Medium (6 to 10
years) and Low (11-20 years) priority timeframe.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
Table 6-1: Capital Project Revenue Estimate (Present Value)
High Priority Medium Priority
0 to 5 Years
6 to 10 Years.
Low Priority
11 to 20 Years
Total
20-year CIP Funding
$44,000,000
$53,000,000
$60,200,000
$157,200,000
The proposed Capital Improvement Program will
need to account for project funding availability
within the approximate amounts as noted in
Table 6-1. The estimated total capital project
revenue of $157M is approximately $32M
less than the $189M project list per Table 1-1
(Total Cost of Prioritized TSP Investments). The
estimated funding gap can be addressed via
additional and aggressive pursuit of state and
federal grant funding opportunities for select
projects throughout the 20-year horizon period.
ROAD MORATORIUM EVALUATION
In 2006, facing an unknown future regarding
transportation funding, the Board of County
Commissioners passed a Road Moratorium
(Resolution 2006-049) which suspended the
establishment of new County roads. The
resolution was modified and replaced in 2009 (via
Resolution 2009-118) to allow for the addition of
collector and arterial road miles to the County's
system. A County road is a road that has been
dedicated for public use, improved to County
road standards, and accepted by the County for
maintenance via Board action (ORS 368.001(1)). A
road that has been dedicated for public use but
has not been accepted for County maintenance
is defined as a Local Access Road (per ORS
368.001(3)).
While the transportation funding environment
has improved since 2006, many of the concerns
which gave rise to the creation of the moratorium
remain, such as:
1. High reliance on infrequent legislative
adjustment to the state fuel tax, weight -mile
tax, and DMV fees.
2. Funding mechanisms, such as the fuel tax,
which have no inflation hedge and are
therefore eroded or outpaced by inflation.
3. High reliance on fuel tax revenue which
is negatively impacted by increasing fuel
efficiency in vehicles, as well as an increasing
number of hybrid and electric vehicles.
4. Reliance on federal programs, such as
SRS and PILT, which require frequent
reauthorization and are subject to reduction.
5. Legislative restrictions on the ability for
counties to generate local revenue, such as
a prohibition on establishment of franchise
fees, and other mechanisms.
The Road Moratorium has allowed the County
to invest new revenue in a Capital Improvement
Plan program and has also focused long-term
maintenance investment in the preservation of
the County's collector and arterial road network.
IMPACTS OF LIFTING THE ROAD
MORATORIUM
Upon establishment of the Road Moratorium
in 2006, the County ceased to accept new
road infrastructure. Prior to 2006 road miles
were added to the County system via new
development as well as improvement of existing
road miles via the Local Improvement District
(LID) process.
New development which has occurred since
2006 has been required to establish private road
maintenance funding arrangements which have
typically occurred via a homeowners association
or other road maintenance agreements.
Approximately 30 miles of new local road
infrastructure have been constructed in the
post -moratorium era; these road miles could be
immediately eligible for County acceptance and
maintenance if the Road Moratorium were to be
lifted. Additionally, approximately 380 miles of
Local Access Road exist in Deschutes County, of
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
which over 120 miles exist within the 19 Special
Road Districts within the County.
The Road Moratorium limited the ability to
form LIDS — which are districts formed under
rules within County Code and State Statute
in which the County contracts for the design
and improvement of County roads within the
district and is reimbursed for the expense via
assessments applied to properties within the
district. Lifting of the Road Moratorium would
allow Local Access Roads to become eligible for
the LID process.
Lifting the Road Moratorium would result
in increased costs associated with road
maintenance for new local road miles added to
the County system and the addition of staff to
administer the LID program. An estimate of costs
associated with the addition of new local road
infrastructure has been prepared based on the
following assumptions:
1. Estimated annual cost of local road
maintenance (paved) and operation:
$1 5,000/m i/yea r.
2. 30 miles of local road (previously
constructed to County standard, post
moratorium) will be added to the system in
Year 1.
3. Twenty-five percent of Local Access Road
mileage will be improved via the LID process
in the 20-year horizon period (approximately
5 miles added per year).
4. Administration of the LID program
will require 2.0 FTE (1-engineer and
1-administrative support personnel).
Table 6-2: Estimated Costs of Lifting the Road Moratorium (Present Value)
Item Year 1 Cost
Acceptance of 30 miles of
improved
$450,000
Year 2-20 Cumulative Cost Total Cost for 20-year
TSP/CIP Horizon Period
$8,550,000
$9,000,000
Acceptance of 5 miles per
year of new local road
infrastructure (starting
year 3)
$0
$12,825,000
$12,825,000
Personnel costs
associated with
administration of the LID
program
$250,000
$4,750,000
$5,000,000
TOTAL
$700,000
$26,125,000
$26,825,000
Lifting the moratorium would reduce funding
available for capital projects by approximately
$27,000,000 across the 20-year horizon period.
Recommendation
Given the financial impact of lifting the Road
Moratorium and concerns related to long-term
transportation system funding in Oregon, it is
recommended that the Road Moratorium remain
in place to extend Deschutes County's ability to
maintain its existing infrastructure and sustain
a viable Capital Improvement Program into the
future.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
LOCAL ACCESS ROAD TOOLS
FA S
To assist with explanation and provide
information to customers seeking to improve
or establish maintenance on non -county
maintained Local Access Roads (LARs), the Road
Department provides the following information
and explanation to customers:
How are Local Access Roads maintained?
LARs are typically maintained by adjacent
property owners and road users. This usually
occurs in one of three ways:
1. Informally: In which neighbors work
together to hire a contractor or self -perform
maintenance and "pass -the -hat" to share in
the cost.
2. Formally: Through homeowners associations
(HOAs) or other formal agreements to share
in the cost of maintenance.
3. Special Road Districts: In which area
residents vote to establish a district which
levies a property tax to fund maintenance.
Deschutes County has 19 Special Road
Districts — which is the highest number of
road districts within any county in the state.
By observation, all three methods work well
in some areas and not very well in other areas
depending upon a variety of factors.
Frequently Asked Questions and
Explanations:
1. I pay taxes and receive no service from
Deschutes County.
Deschutes County does not utilize property tax to
fund transportation maintenance improvements
as that practice is restricted by State law.
Regarding gas tax, the State currently charges
38-cents per gallon (and various DMV fees)
to fund the transportation system. The State
distributes the gas tax revenue in a 50-30-20
proportion in which the State keeps 50% to fund
the state system, the counties receive 30% to
fund the county systems, and cities receive 20%
to fund the city systems.
When customers pay the gas tax, they don't
individually fund the transportation jurisdiction
in which they live, they fund the entire system
of state highways, county roads and city streets.
Everyone pays the same rate, whether or not they
live in a city or the unincorporated areas. If you
are paying a gas tax, chances are you are driving
on the system that is being maintained with gas
tax funds.
2. Why can't the County maintain my gravel
road (LAR)?
Due to the fiscal burden that would be placed on
county road departments to maintain significant
mileage of sub -standard road construction, state
law restricts the ability of counties to spend road
funds (fuel tax and DMV fee revenue) on LARs. If
we add gravel, grade, or plow one mile we would
be obligated to provide that same service to all
of the other LARs in the County.
3. How come the County maintains some
gravel roads but not others?
The County maintains approximately 125 miles of
gravel road that have been lawfully established
as County roads and accepted for maintenance.
Most of these miles were gravel when Deschutes
County was established in 1916 and had
previously been accepted for maintenance,
with gravel surfacing, when Deschutes County
was a part of Crook County. Current LARs have
never been accepted by Deschutes County for
maintenance.
4. Not everyone contributes to help maintain
my Local Access Road.
This is the biggest downside of living on a LAR.
Some neighbors have different opinions on
levels of road maintenance and some choose
not to pay for other reasons. This is where good
neighborhood relations and communication pay
dividends. There are many examples of where
this is taking place in Deschutes County.
Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
5. We have public traffic on our LAR that
accesses public land.
Living next to public land has positive and
negative impacts to quality of life. The attraction
of the public to public land is one of the
negative consequences. Use of public roads,
like LARs, to access public land is a logical and
predictable occurrence and therefore something
that property owners should factor into their
decision to purchase property when conducting
due diligence. Similarly, road maintenance costs
associated with unmaintained LARs should also
factor into the decision to purchase property.
Most LARs have been in existence for many
decades as have the public lands they may serve.
DES
STAFF FINDINGS
FILE NUMBER(S): 247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
SUBJECT PROPERTY/
OWNER: N/A
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
STAFF CONTACT:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Deschutes County Planning Division
c/o Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
P.O Box 6005
Bend, OR 97708
Replace the 2010-2030 Deschutes County Transportation System Plan
with 2020-2040 Transportation System Plan and accompanying map,
including updated traffic volumes, Goals and Policies, project list, and
functional reclassifications.
Tarik Rawlings, Senior Transportation Planner
Phone: 541-317-3148
Email: Tarik.Rawlings@deschutes.org
RECORD: Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov
Record items can be viewed and downloaded from:
https://www.deschutes.org/cd/page/transportation-system-plan-
u pdate-2020-2040-247-23-000507-pa-508-ta
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA
Deschutes County Code (DCC)
Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance
Chapter 22.012, Legislative Procedures
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR)
OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
OAR 660-012, Transportation Planning
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
'(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org e,. www.deschutes.org/cd
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan - Title 23
Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
II. BASIC FINDINGS
PROPOSAL
This is a legislative plan and text amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to
remove the 2010-2030 Transportation System Plan (TSP) and replace it with the 2020-2040 TSP. The
TSP is Section 3.7 within the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The TSP contains goals and
objectives to ensure the safe, efficient, and economical operation of the County's transportation
system. The 2020-2040 TSP includes several new goals and policies; updates information for
population and traffic volumes; assesses system deficiencies and prioritizes future road projects
and/or policies to mitigate those deficiencies; and makes several functional reclassifications of
County roads.
BACKGROUND
In 2010, County staff prepared a 2010-2030 TSP, which removed and replaced the 1996-2016 TSP.
The 2010 plan is now halfway through its lifespan and the County has seen a large increase both in
population and traffic volumes on County roads and State highways. The process began in 2020 to
update the TSP. The previous TSPs were done in-house, but this version was done by a consultant
based on Planning Division staffing levels and workloads. The Road Department funded the project.
The update was done concurrently with a State Transportation and Growth Management (TGM)
grant to update of the bike, pedestrian, and transit components of the Tumalo Community Plan
(TCP) and look at rural trails in the area known as Sisters Country, i.e. the attendance boundary of
the Sisters School District.
REVIEW CRITERIA
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative plan
and text amendment. Nonetheless, since Deschutes County is initiating one, the County bears the
responsibility for justifying that the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goals and
the County's Comprehensive Plan.
I11. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 22.12, LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES
Section 22.12.010.
247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
(Transportation System Plan, 2020-2040) Page 2 of 8
Hearing Required
FINDING: This criterion will be met because a public hearing will be held before the Deschutes
County Planning Commission on August 10, 2023, and a future public hearing will be held before
the Board of County Commissioners.
Section 22.12.020, Notice
Notice
A. Published Notice
1. Notice of a legislative change shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the county at least 10 days prior to each public hearing.
2. The notice shall state the time and place of the hearing and contain a statement
describing the general subject matter of the ordinance under consideration.
FINDING: This criterion is met as notice was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on July 20th,
2023 for the Planning Commission public hearing and additional published notice will be sent for
the Board of County Commissioners' public hearing.
B. Posted Notice. Notice shall be posted at the discretion of the Planning Director and
where necessary to comply with ORS 203.045.
FINDING: Posted notice was determined by the Planning Director not to be necessary.
C. Individual notice. Individual notice to property owners, as defined in DCC
22.08.010(A), shall be provided at the discretion of the Planning Director, except as
required by ORS 215.503.
FINDING: Given the proposed legislative amendments do not apply to any specific property, no
individual notices were sent.
D. Media notice. Copies of the notice of hearing shall be transmitted to other
newspapers published in Deschutes County.
FINDING: Notice was provided to the County public information official for wider media
distribution. This criterion is met.
Section 22.12.030 Initiation of Legislative Changes.
A legislative change may be initiated by application of individuals upon payment of
required fees as well as by the Board of County Commissioners.
FINDING: The application was initiated by the Deschutes County Planning Division at the direction
of the Board of County Commissioners and has received a fee waiver. This criterion is met.
247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
(Transportation System Plan, 2020-2040) Page 3 of 8
Section 22.12.040. Hearings Body
A. The following shall serve as hearings or review body for legislative changes in this
order:
1. The Planning Commission.
2. The Board of County Commissioners.
B. Any legislative change initiated by the Board of County Commissioners shall be
reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to action being taken by the Board of
Commissioners.
FINDING: The Deschutes County Planning Commission held the initial public hearing on August 10,
2023. The Board will hold a public hearing on a future date to be determined. These criteria are or
will be met.
Section 22.12.050 Final Decision
All legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance
FINDING: The proposed legislative changes will be implemented by ordinance, number to be
determined, upon approval and adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. This criterion
will be met.
OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement:
FINDING: Deschutes County involved the public via a web site and online meetings, held two
advisory committee meetings, targeted outreach to with community and social service
organizations, and held work sessions with both the Planning Commission (PC) and the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC). The latter were open to the public both in person as well as
broadcast online. The TSP Project Committee also worked closely with the citizen volunteers of the
County's Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The 2020-2040 TSP is therefore
consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning:
FINDING: The TSP 2020-2040 does not change any Comprehensive Plan designations or zoning
designations for lands the County administers under DCC Titles 18 (County Zoning), 19 (Bend Urban
Growth Boundary Zoning), 20 (Redmond Urban Area), and 21 (Sisters Urban Area). The update is
the subject of land use file, 247-23-000507-PA/508-TA, and will be processed under the County's
procedures for a legislative amendment. The County on July 6, 2023, provided the required 35-day
prior notice to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) before the first
evidentiary hearing. The 2020-2040 TSP is therefore consistent with Goal 2.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands:
247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
(Transportation System Plan, 2020-2040) Page 4 of 8
FINDING: 2020-2040 TSP does not change any Comprehensive Plan Agriculture designations nor
change any lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). Future roadway projects are listed and
prioritized in Tables 5-1 (Intersection Changes and Associated Cost Estimates), 5-2 (Roadway
Changes and Associated Cost Estimates), and 5-4 (ODOT Intersections Changes and Associated
Costs). The projects are shown on Figures 5-1 (County Intersection Projects), 5-2 (County Roadway
Projects), and 5-4 (State Facility Projects). The only project shown on EFU lands is CC-17 to extend
SW 19th Street to U.S. 97 in the vicinity of Quarry Road. The table notes this an illustrative project
and staff notes an Exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agriculture) would likely be required
prior to implementation. The priority of the project remains undetermined. The 2020-2040 TSP is
consistent with Goal 3.
Goal 4: Forest Lands:
FINDING: The 2020-2040 TSP does not change any Comprehensive Plan Forest designations nor
change any lands zoned F1 (Forest) or F2 (Forest). Future roadway projects are listed and prioritized
in Table 5-1 (Intersection Changes and Associated Cost Estimates), 5-2 (Roadway Changes and
Associated Cost Estimates) and shown on Figures 5-1 (County Intersection Projects), 5-2 (County
Roadway Projects). County projects in F1 and F2 lands appear to be within existing rights of way.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) projects are listed in Table 5-4 (ODOT
Intersections Changes and Associated Cost Estimates) and shown on Figure 5-4 (State Facility
Projects.) The only project that may be on Forest lands is S-6 (Deschutes River Woods South
Interchange Project). At this scale it is hard to discern if this low -priority project is located on
Deschutes National Forest (DNF) land or not. If on DNF land, then no Exception to Statewide
Planning Goal 4 (Forest) is required. If not on federal land, then a Goal 4 Exception would be
required prior to implementation. The 2020-2040 TSP is consistent with Goal 4.
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources:
FINDING: No roadway projects are proposed that would adversely affect Goal 5 resources.
Additionally, Goal 6: Sustainability and the Environment calls for balancing transportation needs
with protecting the natural environment. Policy 6.4 states specifically to "Preserve listed Goal 5
resources within the County." Therefore the 2020-2040 TSP is consistent with Goal 5.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality:
FINDING: Goal 6 and its policies all pertain to protecting the quality of air, water, and land resources.
Specifically, Policy 6.3 calls for compliance with applicable state and federal noise, air, water, and
land quality regulations. Through the inclusion of policies to provide for alternate modes, the TSP
will also ensure the quality of air, water, and land resources. Therefore the 2020-2040 TSP is
consistent with Goal 6.
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards:
FINDING: The Comprehensive Plan in Section 3.5 lists the following natural hazards endemic to
Deschutes County: wildfire, snowstorms, flooding, and volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. The
Road Department maintains a signed system of evacuation routes from isolated rural subdivisions
in case of a natural disaster. Sustainability and Environment Policy 6.6 specifies prioritizing
"...transportation investments that support system resilience to seismic events, extreme weather
events, and other natural hazards." ODOT plows State highways and has Variable Message Signs
247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
(Transportation System Plan, 2020-2040) Page 5 of 8
(VMS) posted on selected roads to provide information about road conditions. The TSP does not
change any existing building codes regarding fire, snow loads or structural resistance to
earthquakes. Therefore, the 2020-2040 TSP is consistent with Goal 7.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs:
FINDING: The 2020-2040 TSP has numerous policies to benefit recreation. Besides having a well -
functioning road system that leads to/from recreational areas, the TSP also includes policies for
those who recreate by bicycle along those roadways. Specific examples include Safety Policy 2.4 to
continue the partnership with BPAC to inform investment decisions for those biking and walking
and Safety Policy 2.7 to prioritize investment in key locations where bicyclists or pedestrians cross
major County roads or State highways. Mobility and Connectivity Policy 3.13 calls for continued
coordination with U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) "...to maintain
the County's system of forest highways to continue to provide key access to recreational areas such
as campsites, lakes, hiking, and biking trails in the County." Economic Development Policy 4.4 calls
for "incorporating facilities for people walking or riding bikes to key recreational area as part of
changes to the roadway system." Economic Development Policy 4.5 states "Support bicycle tourism
by prioritizing and improved designated County bike routes." Equity and Accessibility Policy 5.8
states "Support efforts of local agencies to develop and maintain a trail system along the Deschutes
River within Tumalo and along major irrigation canals." Finally, Strategic Investments Policy 7.1
states "Continue to pursue and implement Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) funding to
prioritize County investments to support tourism and access to key recreational sites." Table 5-7
(Bicycle Recreation Connections) also meets this goal. Therefore, the 2020-2040 TSP is consistent
with Goal 8.
Goal 9: Economic Development:
FINDING: A functioning well -managed transportation network with sufficient capacity to move
goods and services is a foundation of economic development. The 2020-2040 TSP has identified
deficiencies in the County network and mitigations to address those deficiencies via its list of
prioritized projects for County roads and State Highways, both segments and intersections. Goal 4
Economic Development states "Plan a transportation system that supports the existing industry and
encourages economic development in the County." Economic Development Policies 4.1 and 4.2
support a well -maintained system of arterials and collectors for land use development and
employment. Economic Development Policies 4.5 and 4.6 stress improvements to support the
freight system and access to U.S. 97, U.S. 20, and OR 126, which ODOT designates as Freight Routes.
Therefore, the 2020-2040 TSP is consistent with Goal 9.
Goal 10: Housing:
FINDING: The 2020-2040 TSP does not change any of the County's Comprehensive Plan
designations or zoning codes related to residential uses. Therefore the 2020-2040 TSP is consistent
with Goal 10. If Goal 10 is interpreted to require a mix of housing types, then it is inapplicable as a
TSP only relates to various transportation modes as defined by OAR 660-012-0020 that serve
existing land use designations.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services:
247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
(Transportation System Plan, 2020-2040) Page 6 of 8
FINDING: The development of the TSP itself and the resulting list of prioritized road projects at
Tables 5-1 (Intersection Changes and Associated Cost Estimates), 5-2 (Roadway Changes and
Associated Costs), 5-4 (ODOT Intersections Changes and Associated Cost Estimates) 5-5 (Pedestrian
Facilities and Associated Cost Estimates), 5-6 (Bicycle Route Community Connections) ensure
adequate public facilities and services. These listed prioritized improvements will result in a timely,
orderly, and efficient development of public roads and highways. The 2020-2040 TSP is consistent
with Goal 11.
Goal 12: Transportation:
FINDING: The development of the TSP itself meets the goal. The TSP as cited in Goal 11 results in
the timely, orderly, and efficient development of public roads and highways as well as
accommodations for all modes. The TSP is based on a combination of planning requirements
(Chapter 1). Goals and policies then set the 20-year vision for the transportation system, which
includes all modes, not just motorized vehicles (Chapter 2). The TSP analyzes deficiencies and needs
while developing a list of plan improvements and programs (Chapter 3). The recommended
projects for a multimodal system are summarized and explained (Chapter 4). The proposed
prioritized projects are listed along with cost estimates and mapped (Chapter 5). The financial
assumptions and forecasts for funding the improvement are then detailed (Chapter 6.) The tables
and figures for the various road projects are summarized above in the findings for Goals 3, 4, and
11. Amendments to the functional classifications for selected roads are provided in Table 5-3
(Changes to the Functional Classification Designations). The 2020-2040 TSP is consistent with Goal
12.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation:
FINDING: The 2020-2040 TSP proposes physical improvements to accommodate bicyclists and
pedestrians as well as policies to promote the development and use of alternate modes such as
bicycling, walking, and transit. The various roadway projects will ensure roads and highways are
not congested as vehicles in stop and go traffic consume more fuel and emit more emissions than
vehicles in free -flow conditions. The 2020-2040 TSP is consistent with Goal 13.
Goal 14: Urbanization:
FINDING: The TSP update was prepared with input from cities within the County to ensure
consistency with the respective TSPs regarding functional classification, future improvements, and
transportation policies. The meshing of the County and urban TSPs ensures an orderly and efficient
transition from rural to urban. The County TSP, by definition applies only to lands outside of UGBs,
however, the TSP contains policies to provide continuing consistency between the County's and the
cities' transportation facilities. Specifically, Goal 1, Coordination and Collaboration states the TSP
promotes a plan that is consistent and coordinated with "...the cities and incorporated communities
within the County." Coordination and Collaboration Policies 1.1-1.18 also stress consistency with
city and County transportation plans and projects. Specifically, Policy 1.3 states "Coordinate
regional project development and implementation with the cities of Bend, Redmond, Sisters, and
La Pine." Policy 1.6 states "Maintain an intergovernmental agreement with each of the cities to
provide specific timelines and milestones for the transfer of County roadways with the urban
growth boundaries at the time of annexation, including full width of right of way." The 2020-2040
TSP is consistent with Goal 14.
247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
(Transportation System Plan, 2020-2040) Page 7 of 8
Goals 15 through 19
FINDINGS: Goals 15 through 19 are not applicable to the proposed plan and text amendments
because the County does not contain these types of lands.
OAR 660-012, Transportation Planning
FINDING: The document was prepared in accordance with the requirements of OAR 660-012,
including but not limited to the modal elements of a TSP, land use assumptions, needs analysis,
traffic projections, selection of alternatives, financing aspects, and public outreach. The 2020-2040
TSP is consistent with OAR 660-012.
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
FINDING: The relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan are Chapter 1 (Comprehensive
Planning), which sets the goals and policies of how the County will involve the community and
conduct land use planning. These are specified in Section 1.2 (Community Involvement) and Section
1.3 (Land Use Planning). The Comprehensive Plan at Chapter 3 (Rural Growth Management) and
the applicable element is Section 3.7 (Transportation).
Section 1.2 sets a goal for an open and active community involvement program that engages the
public during development of land use policies and codes. Policy 1.2.2 designates the Planning
Commission as the Committee for Community Involvement. Policies 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 detail
procedures for public outreach and avenues of outreach. As described above, the County complied
with DCC 22.12 for a legislative amendment, including notice to the public, DLCD, and relevant
agencies. Both the Planning Commission and Board will conduct separate public hearings and
objectively evaluate the facts. Additionally, staff conducted extensive public outreach via email,
online open houses, website, and work sessions with the PC and the Board, which were open to the
public and broadcast online.
Section 1.3 sets a goal of an open and public land use process to reach fact -based decisions. For
the development of the TSP, the County has done public outreach using traditional methods (face-
to-face meetings, work sessions with the PC and the Board) and newer methods (website, online
public meetings, electronic records, video meetings, etc.)
Section 3.7 is the Transportation System Plan itself and is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan
as Appendix C.
Based on the above, the 2020-2040 TCP is consistent with the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan.
V. CONCLUSION
The proposed 2020-2040 TSP complies with all relevant Deschutes County and OAR requirements.
247-23-000507-PA/508-TA
(Transportation System Plan, 2020-2040) Page 8 of 8
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: l e
Name /---/12) -3- a,,..„„
Address 2- $ 2 A) l) f 5 =�
Phone #s S O 3- 7 O) — S �t
E-mail address . C s s' " - . F- - , s 0 14 2 Q G- ry 4 / e C
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Subject:
Name
Address
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
+Cii-z-en Input or Testimony
/1-r-
Date: ii / /2
Phone #s
9"� -q0�'
ClP
E-mail address � L s atAAA,t-�r aQ , oc o = 0)474.
4.
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? g Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: "1ST ()? dGL C `7 0 \ i C W c of ✓t � Date: 11 1 21
Name ZcAb'rtVrA 3UJ
Address �, ie
Phone #s
Sew
E-mail address 1" t not : t
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes Ei No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Subject: 1
Name
(Art-
)- 9?
Address
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Date:
Phone #s 1 / 9 .
E-mail address 1,40,- C ! ..s C'
In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: )6---2zqb c.?
Name 1?)4 C
Address &JD Cjj3kei,4-
a(IV, WI-P._
Phone #s 4c60 62-36
E-mail address
In Favor
bc..)ec 704 L".7"1
Date: 12 3
Neutral/Undecided 1(1 Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Dear Deschutes County Commissioners,
The Bend Chapter of the Oregon Hunters Association stands in opposition of the
proposed multi -use trail alignment from south of Bend to the Lava Lands Visitors
Center.
As proposed, if placed on the east side of highway 97, we believe this alignment will
have a negative impact on the mule deer usage of the existing wintering range habitat
between Bend and the High Desert Museum. It is already well known that the presence
of people, their dogs, bicyclist and other user groups alter the feeding, bedding and
migration habits of our mule deer.
The added stress of these trail users, especially during the winter months when forage is
harder to find, will only accelerate the downward spiral of the mule deer population in
this part of Deschutes County. Multiple studies have shown that added stress caused by
the disruption in the feeding and rest cycles of adult female mule deer leads to less fawn
production and fawns that aren't born as healthy and are therefore less likely to mature to
the point they are able to escape predators.
The continuation of the trail system that already exists between Sunriver and Lava
Lands, on to Bend, will undoubtedly result in much more usage than that of the current
trails. This Sunriver to Lava Lands trail passes through a known migration corridor
which has multiple highway under passes to aid in the safe passage of our mule deer
during their migration. Constructing a trail system that attracts additional users to travel
from Sunriver to Bend through these mule deer migration routes will result in even more
disturbance and further the fragmentation of this vital central Oregon mule deer habitat.
This, according to ODF&W's recently proposed Winter Overlay, is something the
county should avoid.
Respectfully submitted,
Rex E Parks Sr
Bend Chapter President
Oregon Hunters Association
541-480-0230
fire!t602@gmail.com
66995 Lance Rd
Bend, Oregon 97703-9142
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Traii16
Subject: Date:
NameVIA/Lk ;
Address 1"c
6ien-e- OR c r'.
Phone #s
E-mail address G v Ldi 1-Ny, i c Yr\
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
EAVOpposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony. Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: Date: 2- 11 f\-. JV 20 Z 3
Name b v �i /`- e., 1(t
Address
t n iZ q 7 70 3
Phone #s
E-mail address j a,,) Coil.
In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? LC �1 Yes No
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
Subject: 1
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
DATE
Name ktu
Address 5 /Jiii I d-
fri-01.--tavq of Goa ' -77 6
Phone #s ._
Date: 1
E-mail address IL4 ttTT CPU Sty gEi..lz_67
17 In Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SION4.1-1-7.0) V
1
al 33
Opposed
No
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
0
Subject:
Name
Address
{
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Date:
a
Phone #s
E-mail address
In Favor
f()
7
Neutral/Undecided
61/7/(, U r�v�
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes L
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS,
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: I Cycla-(16
..
Name �� Ra y
Address 1,().(a f !
Date: / (
rg
Phone #s Ua
E-mail address
In Favor
765 -2,6-o-D-
g4v
fl ceo --er orb,
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the records
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject:>? "v -\-c,
Name
Date: t t
Address
IA ISA-
Phone #s g Ii `- t,0 0
E-mail address 0 Gt`
TX1 In Favor Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes L
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Q°�
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUESTTO SPEAK
Citizen Input or Testimony
Subject: C ecl'g'( iO C
Name r0YC VA( LCev
Address 19 ? tel Di sh Pl v Y Yi
EEC Get 996Z
Phone #s
1 '11 ip 5 53'f
Date: ((I e fi / 2 .
E-mail address '0 Y C 2 (c 1 I - > g..--iv At)
rIn Favor
Neutral/Undecided
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 'Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record:
' rc- ! " c c 1
47
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
Opposed
at
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Subject:
Name
Address
Citizen Input or Testimony
DI.. Date: 2ct 2 OZ3
0 4•1`E \)6,33Alt 1-\
Phone #s S- I ,_313 - co 5 _
E-mail address
In Favor
je k k Sc.k utIoe r r i t r :) mG , c.
Fi Neutral/Undecided Opposed
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes Y\To
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
REQUEST TO SPEAK
Subject:
Name C;0t,,
Address
Phone #s
E-mail address
rj„-- In Favor
Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes
If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record.
Citizen Input or Testimony
Date:
Neutral/Undecided
)14
Opposed
SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO
RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS